Party which initiates a court case
POPULARITY
Categories
55 episodes with plaintiffs
53 episodes with plaintiffs
58 episodes with plaintiffs
38 episodes with plaintiffs
38 episodes with plaintiffs
26 episodes with plaintiffs
39 episodes with plaintiffs
23 episodes with plaintiffs
21 episodes with plaintiffs
10 episodes with plaintiffs
27 episodes with plaintiffs
8 episodes with plaintiffs
25 episodes with plaintiffs
9 episodes with plaintiffs
6 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
18 episodes with plaintiffs
25 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
11 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
9 episodes with plaintiffs
6 episodes with plaintiffs
29 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
10 episodes with plaintiffs
6 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
12 episodes with plaintiffs
6 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
10 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
8 episodes with plaintiffs
8 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
13 episodes with plaintiffs
2 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
9 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
11 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
2 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
In this episode of Experts Unleashed, I sit down with Lennon Wright, a Houston personal injury attorney who has been practicing law for 48 years — 100% on the plaintiff side, never once defending an insurance company. Board certified in personal injury trial law since 1982, AV rated since 1984, and a magna cum laude graduate of the University of Houston Law Center, Lennon has built a career around cases other attorneys say can't be won. He has twice changed Texas law in favor of injured victims — a distinction held by almost no one practicing today. We go inside the cases that took 8, 12, and 15 years to resolve, the one deposition question that unlocked a recovery everyone said didn't exist, the critical difference between admitted and non-admitted insurance carriers that most lawyers never think to look for, and what 48 years of plaintiff-only work has taught him about perseverance, the Texas Supreme Court, and why he's never once been tempted to switch sides.
In this episode of Entertainment Law Update, Gordon Firemark and Tamera Bennett break down major developments in entertainment, media, copyright, trademark, and AI law — including The Onion's attempt to take over Infowars, new fair use rulings, Taylor Swift's anti-deepfake … Read the rest The post Parody, Pastiche & Problematic Plaintiffs – Entertainment Law Update – Episode 191 appeared first on Entertainment Law Update.
A review of Kerry Lutz v. Town of Palm Beach challenging QR-code parking stickers and municipal compliance with traffic-device standards. • Case filed April 23 in S.D. Fla. • Plaintiff moved to take judicial notice of sticker facts • MUTCD adopted into Florida law governs device specs • Plaintiff cites 2004 AG opinion and June 2025 FDOT memo • Evidence includes municipal websites and street photos • Vendor ecosystem centered on One Parking is fragmented • Data-privacy and vendor-accountability concerns raised • Issue: privatization of notice and enforcement Find Kerry Here: https://kerrylutz.com Get the book here: No Parking
In this episode of Experts Unleashed, I sit down with Pedro Krompecher, managing partner of Krompecher Law Firm in Raleigh, North Carolina — the attorney known to his community as Abogado Pedro. Pedro played professional soccer in Belgium, nearly dropped out of law school, spent close to a decade defending hospitals, nursing homes, and large corporations, and built one of the most effective plaintiff trial practices in the Carolinas. We get into what the defense side actually teaches you about winning on the plaintiff side. We talk about his three-dot rule — why plaintiff lawyers who connect twelve dots lose, and plaintiff lawyers who connect three win. We break down the double fatality case he settled on a Thursday before Monday trial by uncovering a buried sensor report showing 170 harsh driving events the defense never saw coming. We talk about what it actually takes to be a plaintiff trial lawyer — risk appetite, competitiveness, a chip on your shoulder — and why most successful trial lawyers were serious athletes. And Pedro shares the one thing about himself that you would never expect from someone who stands in front of juries for a living.
The case has been tried and appealed a few times and the 5th Circuit finally said the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation under the Texas state constitution. https://ij.org/
Plaintiffs' antitrust attorney Ryan Downton's five-in-five legal strategy, Pac-12 finances and more.We would love to know what you think of the show and you can let us know on social media @D1ticker.If you are not subscribed to D1.ticker, you can and should subscribe at www.d1ticker.com/.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge John Skinder rejected a lawsuit targeting House Bill 1296, Washington's rewritten parental rights law. Plaintiffs — including school board members and parents — argued the law limits transparency and interferes with parent-child relationships. The ruling is expected to be appealed, and voters will weigh in on a ballot initiative this November. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/judge-rejects-lawsuit-against-rewrite-of-wa-parental-rights-law/ #HouseBill1296 #ParentalRights #WashingtonState #PublicSchools #Education #Politics ---
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW! The individual plaintiff behind the explosive Virginia gun ban lawsuit joins Armed American Radio LIVE to break down the legal battle that could reshape the future of the Second Amendment nationwide. John Crump — AmmoLand writer, Virginia resident, and named plaintiff in the newly filed lawsuit — explains why gun owners in Virginia are fighting back against what he calls “tyrannical” and “draconian” anti-Second Amendment laws. The discussion dives deep into the constitutional strategy behind the lawsuit, the political climate in Loudoun County, Virginia, and why this fight could become one of the most important 2A legal battles in America. The conversation covers: • Virginia gun ban lawsuit• Second Amendment legal strategy• Virginia Constitution gun rights protections• Loudoun County politics and gun control• AR-15 bans and SCOTUS implications• Harmeet Dhillon and DOJ involvement• Heller and Bruen Supreme Court precedents• Constitutional rights vs election politics• Gun rights activism in Virginia• Anti-gun legislation and legal challenges• Virginia Democrats and firearm restrictions• Why gun owners are fighting back NOW
Agriculture Department employees are suing Secretary Brooke Rollins over what they are calling “coercive” religious messaging. The lawsuit comes in response to an Easter message that Rollins sent to 100,000 department employees. Plaintiffs say her email implies an “in-group” religion at USDA and that those who don't agree may face “negative consequences.” Here with more, Federal News Network's Drew Friedman.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
We Like Shooting - Ep 662 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries (Code: WLSISLIFE) Die Free Co. (Code: WLSISLIFE) Bowers Group (Code: WLS) Otis Technology (Code: WELIKESHOOTING15) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171 Public Show Titles GOA GOALS Aug 1-2 in Iowa. https://goals.goa.org/ GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT [XTech Tactical] LDR2000 B1 The LDR2000 B1 is a magazine speed loader designed specifically for the Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 2.0 .380 ACP micro-compact pistol, addressing the stiff single-stack magazines' loading difficulties by making the process faster, easier, and thumb-friendly. It slips easily over factory or aftermarket .380 magazines, allowing users to load rounds smoothly with minimal effort using just a finger and thumb, while protecting magazine feed lips, preventing ammunition damage, and reducing hand strain. Key features include loading magazines in 30 seconds or less, compact and lightweight design for easy carrying, durable injection molded polymer construction, and a utility patent pending. [Mitchell Defense] DualCool CP1 Handguard (Nick) The DualCool™ CP1 Handguard is the first 3D-printed, dual-layer AR-15 handguard engineered for extreme thermal control, built with CP1 alloy and featuring an air-gap core that slows heat transfer to keep the outer shell cool longer and cooling faster between shots. It includes integrated grip texture 3D-printed into the alloy for maximum control without compromising M-LOK or Picatinny function, along with reinforced M-LOK slots and a full-length Picatinny top rail.0 BULLET POINTS PSA: You absolutely can get your EFT from those “services.” (Nick) Note (Nick) Match Recap GUNDERWEAR Concealed Carry Underwear GUNDERWEAR is a patented underwear product designed to improve comfort for concealed carry, particularly appendix carry, by integrating padding as a barrier between the body and gun/holster. Developed by Tyler Abadie, it prevents rubbing, stabbing, and irritation during prolonged wear in activities like security work, driving, and daily tasks. Available for men and women, it has received positive feedback from civilians and professionals in law enforcement and military. GUN FIGHTS No one stepped into the arena this week. WLS IS LIFESTYLE Imported Story https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYHcS-OuFv1/?igsh=bjJhank2dG02dHJw GOING BALLISTIC Bergmann-Schoch v. Davenport: New Jersey's Hollow-Point Ammunition Ban Challenged Under Second Amendment A lawsuit in New Jersey challenges the state's prohibition on hollow-point ammunition as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs argue the ban creates a Catch-22 by allowing only full metal jacket rounds while denying the right to ‘military arms.' The state's motion to dismiss is rebutted, dismissing historical analogies as rooted in racial prejudice. Hawaii Legislature Adjourns Sine Die: Defeat of Anti-Gun Bills HB2062, SB2503, SB2517, SB2575, SB2576, SB2720 The Hawaii State Legislature adjourned sine die on May 8, 2026, resulting in the defeat of several anti-gun bills aimed at expanding red flag laws, funding gun buybacks, elevating penalties, broadening prohibited persons lists, and creating a firearm injury restitution fund. These measures raised due process concerns by potentially suspending Second Amendment rights via civil proceedings and imposing felony penalties without full evidentiary hearings. NRA-ILA credits NRA members and supporters for contacting lawmakers to secure this victory. NBC News Report on Kyle Rittenhouse Spider Bite (Kenosha, Wisconsin Case) NBC News tweeted about Kyle Rittenhouse's hospitalization from a venomous spider bite, framing his 2020 Kenosha, Wisconsin self-defense shootings as ‘opening fire at a 2020 civil rights rally.' The Bearing Arms article criticizes this as biased misrepresentation, omitting the riot context and Rittenhouse's acquittal on self-defense grounds. It argues this exemplifies media disinformation against gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. Mississippi DeSoto County Billboard: ‘Firing Squad Is Legal. Think Twice' A billboard in DeSoto County, Mississippi, next to I-55 warns would-be criminals that ‘Firing Squad Is Legal. Think Twice.' DeSoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton states it promotes aggressive prosecution of violent criminals entering the state. The message emphasizes that Mississippi does not coddle violent crime and firing squad executions are legal there. Harmeet Dhillon: The Term ‘Assault Weapons' Is ‘Just a Made-Up Category' Harmeet Dhillon describes ‘assault weapons' as a made-up category and epithet applied to effective and popular firearms like the AR-15. The term originated from Democrats in the 1990s for a federal ban from 1994 to 2004, which a study found did not reduce gun crime or violence lethality. Discussion references national federal policy and Denver's local ban. United Gun Shop v. Capital One and Melio (Maryland) United Gun Shop, a Maryland FFL gun dealer, filed a lawsuit against Capital One and Melio after being denied access to Capital One's bill-paying service, citing the business as a ‘restricted industry.' Payments worked from December 2024 until March 2025, followed by deplatforming and formal denial in March 2026. The suit invokes President Trump's August 2025 Executive Order ‘Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' addressing discrimination against lawful firearm businesses. REVIEWS Review: A in your face 5 squares. I disagree what a lot of what they say, but damnit if I also dont find myself agreeing with a lot of what they say. Always entertaining, rarely boring, definitely infuriating – especially when Aaron digs in on something. And one of the few places where the advertisers are actually vetted, with actual use experience reviews, and honesty when things go down. Review: FedsRGay 5 stars. A sad sack Jew, a retard with anger issues, a man with a blownout Anus, a communist thumb and their slightly weird uncle from Colorado walk into a podcast studio. This is not a joke about the special Olympic's or the Democratic Party! This is the cast of the number one rated gun podcast on the firearms radio network! This dumpster fire is wildly entertaining and sometimes even educational. Occasionally they have cool sponsors on the show that seem slightly less retardy. Quality entertainment overall. I give it a solid 5 squares. PS: Jeremey is not a cunt. But AA ron is. PPS: I wrote this review once before but baguettes on iTunes didn't publish it. PPPS: no notes PPPPS: I love you guys, say it back Review: Anonymous Coward from Wisconsin I left a review Before we let you go – JOIN GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA We'd love if you supported the show, join Agency 171 at agency171.com. Lot's of prizes, rewards and kick ass swag. No matter how tough your battle is today, we want you here fight with us tomorrow. Don't struggle in silence, you can contact the suicide prevention line by dialing 988 from your phone. Remember – Always prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery. We'll see you next time! Nick – @busbuiltsystems | Bus Built Systems Jeremy – @ret_actual | Rivers Edge Tactical Aaron – @machinegun_moses Savage – @savage1r Shawn – @dangerousfreedomyt | @camorado.cam | Camorado
This Day in Legal History: Christmas is Canceled in MassachusettsOn May 11, 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law making it illegal to celebrate Christmas. The law imposed a fine of five shillings on anyone who observed the holiday by feasting, taking the day off from work, or engaging in other forms of celebration. To modern readers, this can sound like a strange kind of anti-holiday law, but it reflected the religious and legal culture of Puritan New England. Many Puritans rejected Christmas because they believed it had no clear biblical foundation and was associated with Catholic tradition, disorderly public behavior, and old English customs they considered improper. In their view, the law was not merely about stopping a party; it was about enforcing a disciplined religious society.The colony's leaders used law as a tool to shape public morality, religious practice, and daily life. This was common in early colonial legal systems, where civil authority and religious authority were often closely connected. The Christmas ban also shows how different early American ideas of “religious liberty” could be from later constitutional understandings. Rather than protecting a broad right to celebrate or worship differently, the Massachusetts Bay Colony often used law to preserve a particular religious order. The five-shilling fine was not enormous, but it was meaningful enough to signal that Christmas observance was legally disfavored.The law remained part of a broader colonial effort to regulate conduct that officials believed threatened communal discipline. Over time, attitudes toward Christmas changed, especially as New England became more religiously diverse and less strictly Puritan. The episode stands as a reminder that American legal history includes not only the expansion of rights, but also earlier moments when law was used to suppress customs now considered ordinary.The legal industry added 2,400 jobs in April, bringing total sector employment to about 1.24 million, according to seasonally adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was a rebound from a small decline in March and placed legal employment slightly above both March and February levels. Compared with the same time last year, the sector had 20,800 more jobs. The legal sector numbers include lawyers, paralegals, and other legal-related professional roles.The rebound follows a long stretch of legal industry growth that was interrupted by March's dip. Two major firms recently announced job cuts: McDermott Will & Schulte is trimming a small number of associates, while Allen Overy Shearman Sterling is reducing roles in its business services team. Across the broader U.S. economy, employers added 115,000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate stayed at 4.3%.Legal Industry Bounces Back, Gaining 2,400 Jobs In April - Law360Virginia's Supreme Court struck down a Democratic-backed congressional map that had been designed to improve the party's chances in four Republican-held U.S. House districts. The court ruled 4-3 that Democratic lawmakers failed to follow the proper process when they moved quickly to put the redistricting plan before voters. The map had been approved by voters in an April special election, but Republicans challenged the measure, arguing that the required intervening election had not properly occurred before the second legislative approval. The court's majority agreed, emphasizing that more than 1.3 million early votes had already been cast by the time lawmakers first approved the proposed constitutional amendment.Democrats criticized the ruling as overriding the will of voters, while Republicans celebrated it as a major win ahead of the midterm elections. Virginia Democrats said they would seek emergency review from the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling could make it harder for Democrats to regain control of the U.S. House, where Republicans hold a very narrow majority. The dispute is part of a broader national fight over mid-cycle redistricting, with both parties seeking favorable maps before the November elections. Republican-led states in the South are pursuing their own redistricting efforts after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision weakened a key part of the Voting Rights Act. Election analyst Kyle Kondik said the Virginia ruling improves Republican odds, though broader political conditions could still affect the outcome in November.Virginia court tosses Democratic map, dealing major blow to party's midterm hopes | ReutersInstructure, the company behind the Canvas learning management platform, is facing at least seven proposed class actions after disclosing unauthorized activity in its system. Canvas is widely used by schools and universities to manage coursework, grades, assignments, and communications. Instructure first announced the incident on May 1, then later reported more unauthorized activity connected to the same breach and temporarily took Canvas offline. The company has since restored much of the platform, but its Free-for-Teacher accounts remain disabled because Instructure believes a vulnerability there may have been exploited.The lawsuits, filed in Utah and New York federal courts, accuse Instructure of failing to adequately protect personal information belonging to students, teachers, and staff. The data allegedly at risk includes names, email addresses, student ID numbers, private messages, enrolled courses, and confidential communications with teachers. The complaints say the hacking group ShinyHunters claimed to have accessed information tied to more than 275 million users.Plaintiffs argue Instructure should have used stronger safeguards, including better encryption, access controls, employee training, monitoring, and protocols for handling sensitive data. They also claim affected users now face loss of control over their information and a heightened risk of identity theft. One New York plaintiff also sued KKR, which acquired Instructure in 2024, and argued the breach was foreseeable in light of earlier major attacks on education software companies. Instructure has said it is investigating, communicating with affected customers, and strengthening protections around access, permissions, token management, monitoring, and related workflows.EdTech Platform Canvas Accused Of Lax Security After Breach - Law360The Trump administration appealed a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that rejected its use of a 1970s trade law to impose a 10% global tariff. The court ruled 2-1 that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not designed to address trade deficits caused by the United States importing more goods than it exports. The decision only blocked the tariffs as applied to the three plaintiffs who sued: two small businesses and the state of Washington. Even though the tariffs were temporary and set to expire in July unless Congress extended them, the ruling marked another legal setback for the administration's broader tariff agenda.The case followed a separate Supreme Court decision that invalidated earlier Trump tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After that loss, the administration turned to Section 122 as a replacement authority for a 10% import tariff. President Trump criticized the trade court's ruling, while U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration expected to win on appeal. The dispute could lead to another major fight over tariff refunds, potentially involving billions of dollars. The timing is also significant because the ruling came shortly before Trump was scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss trade tensions.The administration is separately pursuing broader tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act, which addresses unfair trade practices and has survived past legal challenges.Trump administration appeals latest court loss on tariffs | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This Day in Legal History: Salmon P. Chase DiesOn May 7, 1873, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase died, ending one of the most unusual legal and political careers in American history. Chase had been an antislavery lawyer, a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio, Abraham Lincoln's secretary of the Treasury, and then Chief Justice of the United States. He was also one of the many talented and ambitious men around Lincoln who did not begin as an admirer of him. Before Lincoln became president, Chase had encountered him as a lawyer and reportedly did not think much of him, viewing him as a rough western attorney rather than a national figure. After Lincoln defeated him for the Republican nomination in 1860, Chase had reason to believe a summons to the White House might be an occasion for Lincoln to enjoy the victory. Instead, Lincoln offered him one of the most important jobs in the government: secretary of the Treasury.It was a revealing moment in Lincoln's political genius, because he was willing to place a rival who had underestimated him in a position of enormous responsibility during the Civil War. Chase helped finance the Union war effort and became closely associated with the creation of a national banking system and the issuance of paper currency. In 1864, Lincoln elevated him again by appointing him Chief Justice of the United States.As Chief Justice, Chase presided over the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, a major constitutional test of presidential power and congressional authority. Near the end of his life, Chase dissented in the Slaughter-House Cases, one of the first major Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's majority read the Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause narrowly, limiting a provision that many had hoped would become a strong source of federal protection for civil rights. Chase's dissent placed him on the side of a broader understanding of Reconstruction's constitutional promise. His death mattered not only because of the offices he held, but because it came at a moment when the Supreme Court was deciding whether the Civil War amendments would transform American law or be read down almost as soon as they were adopted.Apple customers have asked a California federal judge to preliminarily approve a proposed $250 million settlement over claims that Apple overstated the artificial intelligence features available on the iPhone 16. The proposed class includes people who bought any iPhone 16 model or certain iPhone 15 models between June 10, 2024, and March 29, 2025. The customers allege Apple advertised enhanced Siri capabilities as part of its Apple Intelligence rollout even though those features were not yet available. Under the settlement, eligible class members who submit valid claims would receive $25 per device, with payments possibly rising to $95 per device depending on participation. Apple is also expected to provide additional Siri-related Apple Intelligence updates in the future at no extra cost.The plaintiffs said settlement made sense because AI-related consumer claims are still legally novel and would carry risk if the case continued. Apple had argued that its marketing was not deceptive because it had already released many Apple Intelligence features and had disclosed that other features would arrive over time. The case began in March 2025 and later became part of a consolidated set of related lawsuits in the Northern District of California. The parties conducted discovery, consulted experts, and participated in three full-day mediation sessions before reaching the proposed deal. Plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek up to $70 million in fees, plus up to $600,000 in expenses. The settlement does not resolve separate securities or shareholder cases claiming Apple misled investors about the timing of the Siri rollout. Apple said it settled to remain focused on developing products and services, while maintaining that it has already introduced numerous Apple Intelligence tools.Apple Reaches $250M Deal Over Claims It Overhyped IPhone AI - Law360Bayer has agreed to acquire Perfuse Therapeutics, a San Francisco biopharma company, in a deal worth up to $2.45 billion. The transaction gives Bayer full rights to PER-001, a drug candidate in phase-two clinical development for glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Bayer will pay $300 million upfront, with the rest tied to development, regulatory, and sales milestones. Perfuse focuses on treatments that improve blood flow to the retina, with the goal of addressing conditions that can lead to blindness. Bayer said the acquisition strengthens its ophthalmology pipeline and supports its effort to develop new therapies for serious eye diseases.The deal is being handled legally by Baker McKenzie for Bayer, with partners Alan Zoccolillo, Oren Livne, and Jieun Tak leading the team. Goodwin Procter is advising Perfuse. The transaction still needs antitrust clearance and approval from Perfuse shareholders. Bayer is being advised financially by BofA Securities, while Centerview Partners is advising Perfuse. Bayer and Perfuse said glaucoma could affect about 112 million people by 2040, while diabetic retinopathy could affect 160 million people by 2045.Baker McKenzie-Led Bayer To Buy Perfuse For Up To $2.45B - Law360 UKThe California Supreme Court is considering whether drugmakers can be held legally responsible for stopping development of a potentially safer drug while continuing to sell an already-approved medication. The case involves Gilead Sciences and roughly 24,000 HIV patients who took drugs containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, or TDF. TDF-based drugs received FDA approval in 2001, but they were associated with possible kidney and bone side effects. Gilead later began developing a related drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or TAF, which patients say had fewer side effects. The company stopped developing TAF in 2004, arguing that it was not different enough from TDF to justify further investment.The patients claim Gilead delayed TAF for business reasons, including to protect TDF sales and time TAF's release around the expiration of TDF patents. Gilead argues that allowing the negligence claims to proceed would punish companies for researching possible improvements and could discourage innovation. The company says the lower court rulings effectively create a “duty to innovate,” even when the drug already on the market is not alleged to be defective. The patients respond that the case is not about forcing endless research, but about whether Gilead unreasonably delayed a safer alternative for profit. A ruling for the patients could expand product-liability exposure for pharmaceutical companies, while a ruling for Gilead could limit claims based on decisions not to commercialize drugs still in development.California's highest court to consider whether drugmakers have ‘duty to innovate' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Pete Hegseth lied to Congress while 175 dead kids cooled in the rubble. Trump lost to Iran. Comey got indicted for a tweet. The Defense Secretary is a fascist with crusader tattoos. None of this is hyperbole. It's the record. *In this episode:* • Hegseth caught lying under oath about the war with Iran • A Tomahawk killed 175 children in an elementary school • His own mother called him a serial abuser — in writing • Trump threatens to yank 35,000 troops from Germany • Comey indicted by Trump's hand-picked prosecutor • Seth Moulton names the war crime: "no quarter" Key figures: Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, James Comey, Adam Smith, Seth Moulton, Friedrich Merz, Todd Blanche
IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more
My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays! In today's interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators. News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision. Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously. China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute. The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded. China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026. Now let's jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis! Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table. Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground. When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One Program, Not Twenty With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge. Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up. Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice. Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved. McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it. Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably. Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data. A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws. AI Governance: Policy Before Tools Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained. He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal. The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain. Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward. McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator. The Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me. Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity. Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program. Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid. Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well. Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key. Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first? Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point. Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us. Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.
Here's something people don't often mention: As a plaintiffs' attorney, you can work side by side with government litigators, taking on some of the most important issues in the country. Case in point, today's guest: June Pineda Hoidal. June is a managing partner of Zimmerman Reed. The Minneapolis-based firm collaborates with public entities, and has fought back against the opioid epidemic, major polluters, and the Trump administration, just to name a few. June unpacks what it's like to bring government cases from within a private firm. Later, Spencer sits down with 2L Marissa Lambert for a check-in on finals and the upcoming summer.Suggestions for topics? Questions for our guests? Email the show at Spencer@CauseOfActionPodcast.com.Learn more about plaintiffs' law from the National Plaintiffs' Law Association. Additional details on the NPLA's Linktree.
John is joined by Shon Morgan and Jack Baumann, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office. They discuss the growing legal tension surrounding the aggregation and commercialization of publicly available information. It focuses on when compiling public data into structured, searchable databases creates a protectable property interest, and when such activity exposes companies to legal risk.One recent series of cases involves disputes over whether entities that invest substantial resources to digitize, index, and organize public records may prevent others from accessing and reusing that enhanced data. In these cases, courts often recognize a distinction between underlying public records, which remain freely accessible, and value-added compilations created through private investment, which may be entitled to protection.A team led by Jack recently won one of these cases on behalf of Ancestry.com, a genealogy company that invested heavily in digitizing and organizing historical public records. Ancestry partnered with state records archives to convert paper and microfiche records into digital formats, adding searchable indexes and metadata that transformed otherwise difficult to use materials into accessible databases. Although the underlying records remained public and available to anyone willing to retrieve them manually, the company's financial and technical investments significantly enhanced the utility of these public records.The dispute arose when an individual sought to obtain not the original public records, but the company's digitized and indexed versions, through a public records request for Ancestry's work directed at one state's archive. The request effectively attempted to appropriate the company's value-added work product without incurring the costs required to create it. An administrative body initially ruled that the materials should be disclosed, reasoning that the company had acted as an extension of the government in performing a public function. On appeal, however, a higher tribunal rejected that view, concluding that the digitized and organized database was materially different from the original records and not subject to compulsory disclosure.A second series of cases have been brought by individuals whose personal information appears in these searchable databases such as ZoomInfo, Spokeo, or Whitepages.com. Plaintiffs in these cases often assert privacy or right of publicity claims, arguing that even if the data originated from public sources, companies should not profit from compiling and monetizing that data without their consent. Although many of these claims face challenges similar to claims in data breach cases, especially in demonstrating actual harm or the inherent value of ordinary personal information. Some courts have allowed these cases to proceed past the dismissal stage, creating significant potential exposure for companies due to the prospect of class-wide liability and statutory damages.While raw public data remains freely accessible, significant private investment in organizing and enhancing that data may often generate a protectable interest. However, individuals may argue that while their information may be publicly available, they never agreed that third parties could profit from it. This tension remains unsettled and will likely evolve as courts confront similar disputes in other contexts involving large-scale data aggregation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
On today's episode, Boston College 2L Marissa Lambert sits down with Angie Pati and Jonathan Koehler, law students at NYU and Rutgers. Angie and Jonathan discuss the ideals that brought them to law school, and how those values are leading them to careers on the plaintiff side. They detail the networking strategies that helped them find jobs, and Jonathan shares his secret for how to study for law school while you're asleep.Suggestions for topics? Questions for our guests? Email the show at Spencer@CauseOfActionPodcast.com.Learn more about plaintiffs' law from the National Plaintiffs' Law Association. Additional details on the NPLA's Linktree.
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Benjamin Torres lost his mother when he was six years old. Valerie Mack disappeared in 2000. Her dismembered remains were found in Manorville that same year and went unidentified for two decades. Rex Heuermann has now pleaded guilty to her murder. But for Torres, the admission that ended the criminal case opened something else entirely — a wrongful death lawsuit naming Heuermann, his ex-wife Asa Ellerup, and their daughter Victoria as defendants.The complaint alleges the two women knew about or concealed the crimes, lived with access to a secured vault-like room in the basement of the Massapequa Park home, and collected over a million dollars from a Peacock documentary. Plaintiff's attorney John Ray has argued publicly that the family could not have been unaware in a house of roughly 1,300 square feet. Hair evidence linked to both Ellerup and Victoria was recovered from victims' remains. Prosecutors have attributed that to ordinary household transference. Ray frames it as evidence of proximity.The defense response has been aggressive. Ellerup's attorney called the suit reckless and completely unsupported by the facts. Victoria was approximately three when Mack was killed. Prosecutors have maintained consistently that Heuermann acted alone and timed his crimes for when the family was away. Neither woman has been charged.Asa called Heuermann her savior. She maintained she would have known if something was wrong. Victoria sat in the courtroom during the plea and has publicly said she believes her father most likely committed the killings. Psychotherapist Shavaun Scott examines the psychology behind that split — how denial functions inside a family where one person's identity is built entirely around the other, and what happens when a guilty plea collapses the framework that held "not knowing" in place.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta breaks down the legal mechanics of the plea itself. Every pre-trial motion failed — the DNA challenge, the motion to sever the cases, the 178-page omnibus motion. Whole genome sequencing was admitted in a New York courtroom for the first time. A deleted planning document was recovered from Heuermann's hard drive. The sentence — life without parole — was reportedly identical whether he went to trial or pled. So what did the plea actually accomplish? Motta examines what the defense calculated, what the families lost when the plea replaced testimony, and what open cases along the Gilgo corridor still need answers. Heuermann has agreed to cooperate with the FBI.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeach #ValerieMack #AsaEllerup #VictoriaHeuermann #LISK #WrongfulDeath #ShavaunScott #BobMotta #HiddenKillers
Asa Ellerup called Rex Heuermann her savior. Their daughter Victoria sat in a packed Suffolk County courtroom and watched him plead guilty to killing eight women. Asa has maintained she would have known if something was wrong. Victoria has publicly said she believes her father most likely committed the killings. A mother and daughter inside the same house, the same marriage, the same nightmare — arriving at opposite conclusions. That split is the story.Benjamin Torres — the son of victim Valerie Mack, who was six when his mother vanished in 2000 — has filed a wrongful death lawsuit naming both women alongside Heuermann. The complaint alleges they knew about or concealed the crimes, had access to a secured vault-like room in the basement of the Massapequa Park home, and collected over a million dollars from a Peacock documentary. Plaintiff's attorney John Ray has argued the family could not have been unaware in a house of roughly 1,300 square feet. Hair evidence linked to both Ellerup and Victoria was recovered from victims' remains. The defense has called the suit reckless. Victoria was approximately three when Mack was killed. Prosecutors maintain Heuermann acted alone. Neither woman has been charged.Psychotherapist and author Shavaun Scott breaks down the psychology of "not knowing" — how the mind constructs barriers to protect an identity that's built around another person, why someone whose entire framework depends on the marriage being real may be neurologically incapable of processing contradictory evidence, and what a guilty plea does to the psychological architecture that held denial in place for decades.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta examines the plea mechanics. Every pre-trial motion had failed. Whole genome sequencing was admitted for the first time in a New York courtroom. A deleted planning document was recovered from Heuermann's devices. The sentence — life without parole — was reportedly the same whether he went to trial or pled. Motta walks through what the defense calculated, what Karen Vergata's uncharged murder being folded into the deal means for accountability, and what the FBI cooperation agreement actually requires. Open cases along the Gilgo corridor remain unresolved. The criminal chapter is closed. The civil and psychological ones are just beginning.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeach #AsaEllerup #VictoriaHeuermann #ValerieMack #HiddenKillersLive #ShavaunScott #BobMotta #LISK #WrongfulDeath
This Day in Legal History: Texas City DisasterOn April 16, 1947, a catastrophic industrial disaster struck Texas City, Texas, when a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate exploded, killing nearly 600 people and injuring thousands more. The blast devastated the surrounding area, leveling buildings and igniting fires that burned for days. In the aftermath, victims and their families turned to the courts, seeking accountability from the federal government for its role in overseeing the shipment and handling of the hazardous material. Their claims were brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a relatively new law at the time that allowed private citizens to sue the government for certain negligent acts.The resulting litigation eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Dalehite v. United States, a case that would shape the boundaries of government liability for decades. Plaintiffs argued that federal officials had been negligent in the planning and execution of the fertilizer export program that led to the explosion. The government, however, maintained that its actions involved policy decisions protected from liability. In a closely watched decision, the Supreme Court sided with the government, holding that the challenged conduct fell within the “discretionary function” exception of the statute. This exception shields the government from lawsuits based on decisions grounded in public policy considerations.The Court's ruling effectively barred recovery for many victims, drawing criticism for limiting access to remedies in cases of large-scale harm. At the same time, the decision established an enduring legal principle: not all government actions, even if harmful, are subject to judicial review through tort claims. The case has since been cited frequently in disputes involving regulatory decisions, disaster response, and federal oversight. Its legacy continues to influence how courts distinguish between operational negligence and protected policy judgment.A Manhattan federal jury found that Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the concert ticketing market. Jurors concluded that the companies controlled primary ticketing services for major venues and used exclusionary tactics to limit competition. One key finding was that Live Nation tied access to its large amphitheaters to the use of its promotional services, restricting competitors. The jury also determined that this conduct harmed competition across dozens of states and led to measurable overcharges for some consumers.The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states and originally included the U.S. Department of Justice, which settled during the trial. That settlement proposed structural changes, including making Ticketmaster's technology available to rivals and limiting certain exclusive venue agreements. It also included a financial component, though many states rejected the deal and continued litigating. The jury ultimately found violations of multiple state laws and confirmed anticompetitive effects in the live entertainment industry.Despite the verdict, key issues remain unresolved, including how much damages the companies will owe and whether structural remedies—such as forcing a sale of Ticketmaster—will be imposed. Live Nation has indicated it will challenge the ruling and pursue post-trial motions and appeals. The case is significant because it addresses how vertical integration across ticketing, promotion, and venues can influence market power.Jury Finds Live Nation Monopolized Concert Ticketing - Law360Freedom Forever, a California-based home solar installer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware with more than $500 million in debt. The company reported liabilities between $500 million and $1 billion, compared to assets estimated between $100 million and $500 million. Among its largest creditors are affiliates of Mosaic, which are owed about $114 million in unsecured claims.Founded in 2011, Freedom Forever has completed over 150,000 residential solar installations across 32 states and employs roughly 3,000 workers. Its bankruptcy comes amid broader financial strain in the home solar industry, where several companies have recently filed for Chapter 11. Industry-wide challenges include declining demand driven by higher interest rates, which make financing solar projects more expensive, and the expiration of a key federal tax credit for residential solar installations.Other major solar companies, including SunPower and Sunnova, have also faced financial distress in recent years. The case highlights ongoing instability in the residential solar sector as companies struggle with shifting economic conditions.Solar Co. Freedom Forever Hits Ch. 11 With Over $500M Debt - Law360John Eastman, a former lawyer for Donald Trump, was disbarred by the California Supreme Court for his role in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The decision followed earlier findings by the State Bar of California that he violated professional ethics rules by making false statements and misleading courts. Although the court has not yet issued a full written opinion, it upheld conclusions that his legal arguments lacked factual and legal support.Eastman had promoted theories that then–Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to certify certain electoral votes, a position Pence rejected as unconstitutional. He also filed unsuccessful litigation seeking to invalidate election results in multiple states and spoke at the rally preceding the January 6 Capitol attack. These actions were central to the findings that he breached his duty of honesty and undermined the legal system.Eastman plans to appeal the disbarment to the U.S. Supreme Court and has pleaded not guilty to related criminal charges in Arizona and Georgia, some of which have since been dropped. The ruling underscores that attorneys can face severe professional consequences for advancing unsupported legal claims, particularly in matters affecting democratic processes. At the same time, disbarment is a professional penalty rather than a criminal one, meaning Eastman is facing significantly less severe consequences than individuals in past attempts to overturn the government—such as participants in the Confederacy—who were met with far harsher legal and historical repercussions.Trump ally John Eastman is disbarred over bid to overturn 2020 election | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Washington's proposed income tax is sparking a major debate — with supporters highlighting benefits for working families and critics warning of broader economic impacts. In this episode of Washington In Focus Daily, we break down both sides of the argument, including: Expansion of the Working Families Tax Credit Claims of tax relief for hundreds of thousands of households Concerns about misleading benefit estimates The impact on small businesses and pass-through income A growing legal challenge involving business owners and advocacy groups What's next as the case heads toward the courts We also hear directly from: Policy advocates supporting the tax Lawmakers raising concerns about cost and implementation A Washington small business owner joining the lawsuit
So far, we've been speaking with veteran attorneys—litigators who've spent decades taking on corporate giants. But today, we wanted to bring on someone who's a little closer to law school. Someone who only recently went through the gauntlet of school, summer jobs, and studying for the bar – and who's currently working as an associate at a plaintiffs' firm. Jenna Forster is a fourth-year associate at Motley Rice. In just a short time, she's already worked on cases taking on opioid manufacturers, vape companies, and social media platforms. Jenna joins Spencer to discuss her path into plaintiffs' law, and what her day-to-day work is actually like. She also makes a strong pitch for joining your law school's mock trial team.Suggestions for topics? Questions for our guests? Email the show at Spencer@CauseOfActionPodcast.com.Learn more about plaintiffs' law from the National Plaintiffs' Law Association. Additional details on the NPLA's Linktree.
This Day in Legal History: Lincoln is Shot at Ford's TheatreOn April 14, 1865, Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre by John Wilkes Booth, an act that would alter the trajectory of Reconstruction and American legal history. Lincoln's life story makes the moment even more striking: born in poverty in a Kentucky log cabin, largely self-educated, and rising through persistence rather than privilege, he embodied a form of democratic possibility rare among world leaders. Over time, his legal and political thinking evolved in meaningful ways, particularly on questions of equality and civil rights. While early in his career he held more limited views, the Civil War years reshaped his outlook, pushing him toward support for Black suffrage and, by some accounts, openness to broader enfranchisement, including for women.Frederick Douglass, who met with Lincoln during the war, captured this complexity well, noting that Lincoln was “preeminently the white man's President,” yet also “the first to show any respect for the rights of the black man.” Douglass emphasized that Lincoln's greatness lay not in perfection, but in growth—his capacity to move, under pressure and moral reflection, toward justice. By April 1865, Lincoln was publicly advocating limited Black voting rights, particularly for Black soldiers and educated men, a position that suggested further expansion might follow in his second term.That possibility was cut short on the night of April 14, when Booth entered the presidential box during a performance and fired a single shot at close range. Lincoln died the following morning, and with him vanished a moderating but increasingly progressive force in Reconstruction policy. In the years that followed, many of the shortcomings we associate with Reconstruction—including the narrowing of federal protections seen in cases like United States v. Cruikshank—took hold in a political environment Lincoln never had the chance to shape. His assassination opened the door to a more fractured and often less protective approach to civil rights enforcement.A little-known but striking footnote to this story involves Edwin Booth, the brother of Lincoln's assassin, who months earlier had unknowingly saved the life of the president's son, Robert Todd Lincoln. At a crowded train platform in Jersey City, Robert slipped and fell between the train and the platform just as the car began to move. Edwin Booth, standing nearby, quickly grabbed him by the collar and pulled him to safety, preventing what could have been a fatal accident. The two men did not recognize each other at the time, and Booth only later learned whose life he had saved. The incident has since taken on a symbolic quality in legal and historical writing, illustrating the strange intersections of fate surrounding the Lincoln family in the days leading up to April 1865.Legally and historically, April 14 stands as a hinge moment: not only the loss of a president, but the loss of a developing constitutional vision. Lincoln's trajectory suggests that Reconstruction might have unfolded differently under his continued leadership, particularly on voting rights and federal protection of equality. Douglass later reflected that Lincoln's legacy should be judged not by where he began, but by how far he traveled. That journey—from humble origins to an evolving commitment to equality—remains central to understanding both the promise and the unfinished work of American law.After his death, Abraham Lincoln's body was carried on a funeral train that retraced, in reverse, the route he had taken to Washington as president-elect in 1861, passing through many of the same stations and drawing massive crowds at every stop. The train's journey from Washington, D.C. to Springfield became a rolling national mourning, with citizens lining the tracks to pay their respects to the fallen leader. In a deeply symbolic sense, the trip marked the completion of Lincoln's final journey—returning him to the place where his political life had taken root, even as the nation he led struggled to carry forward the work he unwittingly left unfinished.President Donald Trump announced plans to nominate Matthew Schwartz, his personal lawyer in the New York hush money case, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Schwartz is a longtime partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and joined Trump's legal team in 2025 to handle the appeal after prior attorneys moved into government roles. Trump praised Schwartz as a strong opponent of government overreach and highlighted his experience in high-level federal and state litigation. In addition to the criminal appeal, Schwartz is also representing Trump in a civil fraud case brought by Letitia James, where his team recently urged the state's highest court to dismiss the claims as politically motivated. Schwartz previously clerked for Samuel Alito and worked at Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, and he is a graduate of Columbia Law School.Trump Taps Personal Attorney for Second CircuitAn Illinois jury in Cook County added $17 million in punitive damages to an earlier $53 million award against Abbott Laboratories in a case brought by four mothers whose premature infants developed necrotizing enterocolitis after being fed the company's formula. The jury previously found in favor of the plaintiffs on claims including failure to warn, negligence, and product defect, awarding individual damages based on the harm suffered by each child, all of whom survived but face lasting health complications.Plaintiffs argued they were not informed of the risks associated with the formula and would have made different feeding decisions had they known. Abbott disputed liability, maintaining that its products are safe and that scientific evidence does not support a causal link between its formula and the condition, and said it plans to appeal. The trial judge allowed punitive damages after finding evidence the company may have withheld risk information, and also criticized testimony suggesting mothers should not be told about such risks. The case is part of broader, ongoing litigation over infant formula, with mixed outcomes in courts across the country.Ill. Jury Adds $17M Punitive Award To Baby Formula Verdict - Law360In my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that new IRS guidance on opportunity zones largely revives the original program from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act without addressing its core flaws—and may even worsen them. While the framework still aims to direct private capital into distressed communities through tax incentives, the updated rules expand where zones can be drawn and lower investment thresholds, particularly in rural areas. In practice, that means more projects will qualify, but fewer are likely to deliver the kind of transformative impact the policy was designed to achieve.The first iteration showed that investment tended to flow toward already developing areas with stronger returns, not the communities most in need, and the new guidance does little to change that incentive structure. Governors retain broad discretion in selecting zones, a feature that previously led to politically influenced designations rather than data-driven ones. By easing standards like the “substantial improvement” requirement, the revised rules make it easier for incremental upgrades—not meaningful redevelopment—to receive tax benefits. As a result, the program risks continuing to function more as a subsidy for already viable projects than as a tool for economic revitalization. I suggest that a more effective approach would tie both zone designation and tax benefits to measurable outcomes like housing growth, job creation, or business investment, while reducing discretionary selection in favor of objective economic criteria. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This Day in Legal History: Colfax MassacreOn April 13, 1873, one of the most violent and legally significant event of the Reconstruction era unfolded in Louisiana with the Colfax Massacre. The conflict arose from a disputed gubernatorial election, as competing groups claimed control of local government in Grant Parish. Black citizens, many of them formerly enslaved, gathered at the courthouse in Colfax to defend the Republican-backed election outcome. White supremacist militias, determined to overturn Reconstruction governments, attacked the courthouse with overwhelming force. By the end of the confrontation, dozens of Black men had been killed, many after surrendering, making it one of the deadliest incidents of racial violence during Reconstruction.In the aftermath, federal prosecutors sought to hold members of the attacking group accountable under the Enforcement Acts, which were designed to protect the civil rights of newly freed citizens. These prosecutions led to the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Cruikshank. The Court ultimately overturned the convictions, ruling that the federal government's authority to prosecute such crimes was limited. It held that the Fourteenth Amendment constrained only state actions, not the conduct of private individuals. This interpretation sharply narrowed the scope of federal power to intervene in cases of racial violence and civil rights violations.The decision effectively left Black citizens in the South vulnerable to attacks by private groups, as state authorities were often unwilling to prosecute perpetrators. It also signaled a broader retreat from Reconstruction policies, undermining efforts to enforce equality through federal law. For decades, this ruling stood as a major barrier to civil rights enforcement, shaping the legal landscape well into the twentieth century. The legacy of Colfax and Cruikshank illustrates how judicial interpretation can either strengthen or weaken constitutional protections, particularly during periods of social and political upheaval.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has launched a new initiative aimed at investigating so-called “birth tourism” networks. These are groups that allegedly help pregnant foreign nationals enter the United States on temporary visas with the goal of giving birth so their children obtain U.S. citizenship. The effort is part of a broader immigration crackdown under President Donald Trump's administration, which has emphasized stricter controls on both legal and illegal immigration.An internal ICE directive instructs agents to identify fraud and organized operations that may be facilitating these activities. While giving birth in the U.S. is not illegal, authorities are focusing on potential misuse of visas and false statements in applications. A 2020 regulation already bars individuals from using tourist visas primarily for the purpose of securing citizenship for a child, meaning violations could lead to fraud charges.The administration has also used birth tourism as a justification for attempting to limit birthright citizenship, a right grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump issued an executive order seeking to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, but multiple courts have blocked the policy, and the issue is now before the Supreme Court. Government lawyers argue that birthright citizenship has encouraged an industry built around these practices, though data suggests such cases represent only a small fraction of total U.S. births.ICE's initiative will focus on uncovering fraud and dismantling organized networks, similar to past prosecutions involving “birth houses” that catered to foreign clients. However, the overall scale of birth tourism remains unclear, and officials have not indicated how many cases they expect to pursue.Exclusive: ICE launches new effort to uncover US ‘birth tourism schemes' | ReutersThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Meta Platforms must face a lawsuit brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. The lawsuit claims that Instagram was intentionally designed to be addictive for children and teenagers. This decision is significant because it is the first time a state high court has addressed whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act can shield a company from claims focused on platform design rather than user-generated content.The court unanimously found that the case can proceed because it targets Meta's own conduct, not the content posted by users. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that Instagram's features—such as notifications, “likes,” and endless scrolling—exploit young users' psychological vulnerabilities. It also alleges that Meta misled the public about the platform's safety and ignored internal research showing harm to teenagers.Meta disagrees with the ruling and maintains that the distinction between content and design is flawed, expressing confidence it will ultimately prevail. Meanwhile, the decision is part of a broader wave of litigation across the United States, with multiple states and plaintiffs accusing social media companies of contributing to a youth mental health crisis. Some recent cases have already resulted in significant financial penalties and verdicts against Meta and similar companies.Meta must face youth addiction lawsuit by Massachusetts, court rules | ReutersYou're getting a double dose of Meta today, with a second development tied to the growing wave of social media addiction litigation.Meta Platforms announced it will remove advertisements on Facebook and Instagram that were being used by law firms to recruit plaintiffs for lawsuits alleging its platforms are addictive to young users. The company said it is actively defending itself in thousands of ongoing cases and does not want attorneys using its services to find clients while simultaneously arguing those platforms are harmful. This move comes shortly after major courtroom setbacks, including jury verdicts that ordered Meta to pay millions in damages tied to alleged harms from youth social media use.The broader litigation landscape is large and still expanding. Thousands of cases are pending in both state and federal courts, many involving claims that platforms like Instagram were designed to encourage compulsive use and contributed to mental health issues among minors. Plaintiffs include individuals as well as public entities like school districts and states, which argue they have had to spend resources addressing the effects of social media on young people. Meta and other tech companies deny these allegations and maintain they have taken steps to improve user safety.The ads at issue are part of a common practice in mass tort litigation, where law firms seek out large numbers of plaintiffs to build cases. These firms often work on contingency, meaning they only get paid if they win or settle, which creates an incentive to recruit clients through widespread advertising. Some attorneys criticized Meta's decision, arguing that blocking ads could make it harder for potential victims to learn about their legal options.Meta pulls ads aimed at recruiting plaintiffs for social media addiction lawsuits | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
In this episode of The Case Doctors, Christine tees up a lineup of legal dilemmas that range from rideshare upgrades to Instagram gotchas — while John Simon and Alvin Wolff do what they do best: separate real claims from manufactured outrage. And, a viewer wonders how to salvage their case after the defense found a workout video of an injured client. John Simon says a case he once had involving an injured wrestler was salvaged by the plaintiff's honesty on the stand even though he was on commercials jumping from the top rope. Subscribe to The Case Doctors: https://play.megaphone.fm/d8rovuhcqx6msdzgbqfaja Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This Day in Legal History: Jackie Robinson Signs with DodgersOn April 10, 1947, Jackie Robinson signed his contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, marking a pivotal moment in both sports and legal history. At the time, racial segregation was deeply entrenched in American society, including in professional athletics, where informal but rigid “color lines” excluded Black players. Robinson's signing, orchestrated by Dodgers executive Branch Rickey, directly challenged this exclusionary system. Although no court decision mandated integration in baseball, the move carried significant legal implications by undermining accepted norms of segregation.Robinson's entry into Major League Baseball occurred just years before landmark civil rights rulings, including Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. His success on the field helped shift public opinion, demonstrating that integration was both possible and beneficial. This cultural shift played an indirect but meaningful role in supporting broader legal challenges to segregation. At the same time, Robinson faced hostility, threats, and discriminatory treatment, highlighting the gap between evolving social practices and existing legal protections.The federal legal framework addressing discrimination was still underdeveloped in 1947, with major statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nearly two decades away. Robinson's breakthrough contributed to the growing momentum for such legislation by exposing the injustice and inefficiency of segregated systems. His experience also illustrated the limits of private action in achieving equality without formal legal enforcement mechanisms. Over time, his role became part of a larger narrative demonstrating how social change can precede and influence legal reform.Robinson's signing stands as an example of how non-judicial actions can shape the development of law by altering public attitudes and expectations. It underscores the interplay between private institutions and constitutional principles, particularly in the realm of equal protection. The event remains a key reference point in discussions about the relationship between cultural progress and legal change in the United States.A California federal judge has ordered another evidentiary hearing in the ongoing dispute between Epic Games and Google over proposed changes to an antitrust injunction governing Android app distribution. U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed frustration that each revised proposal introduces new elements, warning the parties that the court will not continue reviewing endless iterations. The latest proposal follows Epic's earlier trial victory, where a jury found Google had monopolized the Android app marketplace.Although the companies claim their revised plan better aligns with the original injunction, the judge raised concerns about potential anticompetitive effects. In particular, he questioned Google's idea of a “registered app store” program, suggesting it might create barriers for rival app stores. He also flagged possible issues with fees that could undermine competition. As a result, the court will require more detailed explanations before deciding whether to approve the changes.The dispute stems from litigation filed in 2020 challenging restrictions that limited alternative app stores and required developers to use Google's billing system. After Epic's win, the court imposed an injunction requiring Google to open its platform to competitors. While the revised proposal keeps some pro-competition measures—such as allowing alternative billing and preventing exclusionary deals—it has drawn mixed reactions.Supporters argue the new terms still promote competition, but critics, including Microsoft and advocacy groups, say the changes weaken the original order. They highlight concerns about new fees and provisions that could make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Some also argue that shifting key terms into private agreements reduces judicial oversight. Judge Donato indicated this upcoming hearing will likely be the final step before a decision, emphasizing the need to resolve the matter without further revisions.‘Not Going To Keep Doing This,' Judge Warns Epic, Google - Law360The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into whether the National Football League is engaging in anticompetitive practices that could harm consumers. While the exact scope of the probe is unclear, it appears to focus on how the league distributes broadcasting rights for its games. Concerns have grown among regulators, lawmakers, and broadcasters about the increasing shift of sports content from free television to paid streaming platforms.Critics argue that this trend makes it harder and more expensive for fans to watch games, with some estimates suggesting it could cost over $1,500 annually to access all NFL broadcasts across multiple services. The NFL has defended itself by noting that most of its games are still available on free broadcast television, particularly in local markets. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has also begun reviewing the broader migration of live sports to subscription-based platforms.The issue has drawn political attention, including a request from Senator Mike Lee for federal agencies to examine whether the NFL's longstanding antitrust exemption should still apply. That exemption, established by a 1961 law, allows leagues to bundle and sell broadcasting rights collectively.US Justice Department opens probe into NFL over anticompetitive practices, source says | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense failed to comply with a prior court order protecting journalists' access and reporting rights at the Pentagon. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the department's revised media policy effectively recreated the same unconstitutional restrictions it had already been ordered to remove. The dispute arose after The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes challenged rules limiting journalists' ability to seek information from government sources.Although the Pentagon changed the wording of its policy, the judge said the new language still prohibited routine journalistic practices, such as requesting non-public information. He rejected the government's argument that the revisions fixed the issue, calling them a clear attempt to sidestep the court's ruling. The opinion also criticized a provision that presumed journalists acted improperly if they offered anonymity to sources, noting that this is a standard practice in reporting.The judge further found that the Pentagon undermined the order by restricting reporters' physical access, including closing a designated workspace and requiring constant escorts inside the building. He dismissed the government's security justification, stating that existing screening procedures were never removed and that the new limitations appeared designed to weaken press access.Ultimately, the court ordered the government to restore prior conditions and comply fully with its ruling. Judge Friedman emphasized that the policy violated First Amendment protections by chilling press freedom and limiting the flow of information to the public. He warned that suppressing political speech and controlling media access are hallmarks of authoritarian systems, underscoring the constitutional importance of an independent press.‘Mark Of Autocracy': Court Says Pentagon Defied Press Order - Law360US judge says Pentagon violated court order to restore press access | ReutersA U.S. trade court is considering whether President Donald Trump's 10% global tariff on imports is lawful. The tariffs, introduced in February, are being challenged by a coalition of 24 states and small businesses, who argue that the policy exceeds presidential authority and improperly bypasses Congress. The case is being heard by a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade.The Trump administration defends the tariffs as a valid response to ongoing trade deficits, relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows temporary tariffs during serious balance-of-payments issues. However, the challengers argue that the law was intended for short-term economic emergencies, not persistent trade imbalances, and that the administration is stretching its meaning.The dispute comes shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Trump's earlier tariffs imposed under a different statute, ruling he had overstepped his authority. Plaintiffs claim the new tariffs are an attempt to work around that decision using a different legal justification.US trade court weighs legality of Trump 10% global tariff | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
In this third installment of our series on examination techniques, Jim Garrity dives into the so-called Reptile Method, developed by jury consultant David Ball and plaintiff's attorney Don Keenan, and explained in their 2009 book Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff's Revolution. It's long been a controversial approach because, some say, it's a disguised version of Golden Rule arguments that are generally forbidden in most jurisdictions. But whether you're on the plaintiff side looking to deploy it or the defense side looking to neutralize it, you need to understand how the three-stage sequence works, and where it's vulnerable.SHOW NOTEShttps://columbialawreview.org/content/shadow-tort-law-lessons-from-the-reptile/ (Columbia University law review article on "The Reptile" method)https://lewisbrisbois.com/insights/clientalerts/the-reptile-theory-in-practice (defense firm blog on the Reptile Theory)https://imslegal.com/articles/reptile-brain-strategy-why-use-it-how-counter-it (jury consulting firm article on the Reptile Method)
This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1866On April 9, 1866, the United States Congress took a decisive step in shaping post-Civil War legal order by overriding President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This marked the first time in American history that a major piece of civil rights legislation became law over a presidential veto. The Act established that all persons born in the United States were citizens, directly challenging the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. By affirming equal protection under the law, Congress sought to secure basic civil rights for newly freed individuals in the aftermath of the Civil War. The override demonstrated a powerful assertion of legislative authority during the Reconstruction era.The law also reflected growing tensions between Congress and the executive branch over how to rebuild the nation. Johnson had argued that the Act overstepped federal authority, but Congress rejected that view, signaling a shift toward stronger federal protection of individual rights. This moment helped redefine the balance of power within the federal government. It also underscored the role of Congress in enforcing civil rights when the executive resisted such measures. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 would later serve as a foundation for the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which constitutionalized its key principles.In practical terms, the Act granted citizens the right to make contracts, sue in court, and own property regardless of race. Although enforcement remained uneven, the statute represented a critical legal milestone in the transition from slavery to citizenship. It also set an enduring precedent for future civil rights legislation. The events of April 9, 1866, illustrate how constitutional mechanisms like veto overrides can shape the trajectory of American law.A former DLA Piper associate, Anisha Mehta, testified in federal court that she was unexpectedly fired shortly after announcing her pregnancy, despite receiving positive feedback on her work. She told the jury she handled significant responsibilities, including managing trademark portfolios for major corporate clients, and believed her performance was strong. Mehta said her supervisor initially reacted supportively to her pregnancy but soon raised vague performance concerns that she had not previously encountered. She described feeling shocked and distressed when she was terminated during a call with her supervisor and an HR representative in August 2022.Mehta claims the firm violated federal and New York City laws by discriminating against her based on pregnancy, while DLA Piper maintains she was dismissed for poor performance. She testified that she attempted to challenge the termination and requested to go through a formal evaluation process, but was denied. After her firing, she continued working briefly until her system access was cut off when she declined a severance agreement.Following her termination, Mehta applied to hundreds of jobs while pregnant but struggled to find employment. She eventually secured a position at eBay in 2024, earning significantly less than her prior salary. During cross-examination, the defense highlighted several alleged mistakes, including minor errors in client communications and administrative oversights, to support its claim of poor performance. Mehta acknowledged some errors but characterized them as minor and not indicative of overall poor work.At the center of the case is whether Mehta's termination was motivated by unlawful pregnancy discrimination or legitimate performance concerns. The legal issue involves employment protections under anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit adverse actions based on pregnancy while still allowing employers to terminate at-will employees for lawful reasons.Pregnant DLA Piper Atty Recounts Firing: ‘This Feels Wrong' - Law360A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that a coalition of states can proceed with their lawsuit challenging a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose denied the federal government's motion to dismiss, finding that the states presented plausible claims under both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. She also criticized the government for repeating jurisdictional arguments that had already been rejected earlier in the case and by the appellate court.The lawsuit, brought by 19 states and Washington, D.C., challenges a sweeping overhaul that aimed to significantly reduce the agency's workforce and restructure key programs. The states argue that the changes disrupted essential public health services, including disease detection, tobacco control efforts, and lead poisoning prevention. They also claim the restructuring caused missed regulatory deadlines, canceled health initiatives, and confusion around federal grants.Judge DuBose had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs, noting that the states demonstrated real and ongoing harm. In this latest ruling, she emphasized that courts have the authority to review and stop government actions that may violate constitutional principles, including separation of powers. The states allege the overhaul exceeded executive authority and violated both statutory requirements and constitutional limits on government power.The federal government argued that the states lacked standing, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the agency's actions were lawful internal management decisions. However, the judge rejected these arguments, stating they had already been considered and did not undermine the plausibility of the claims. As a result, the case will move forward, allowing the states to continue challenging the legality of the HHS restructuring.HHS Must Face States' Suit Over RFK's ‘Dramatic Overhaul' - Law360John Deere has agreed to a $99 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by farmers who accused the company of restricting competition in the repair market for its equipment. The farmers alleged that John Deere limited access to necessary diagnostic tools and software, effectively forcing customers to rely on authorized dealers for repairs at higher costs. The company denied wrongdoing but said the agreement resolves the dispute and allows it to move forward.The settlement includes both monetary compensation and significant changes to repair access. Farmers who paid for repairs through authorized dealers since 2018 will be eligible for compensation, with total payouts expected to exceed $100 million with interest. Experts estimated that the alleged overcharges ranged much higher, making the recovery a relatively strong percentage compared to typical antitrust settlements.In addition to financial relief, John Deere agreed to provide independent repair shops and equipment owners with access to diagnostic tools and software over a 10-year period. This change is intended to allow farmers to repair their own equipment or use third-party providers, addressing concerns about restricted competition. Plaintiffs described this as a major shift that breaks down the company's control over the repair market.The lawsuit, filed in 2022, claimed that John Deere monopolized the aftermarket for repairs by designing equipment that required proprietary tools. A federal judge previously allowed the case to proceed, finding sufficient evidence of potential market power. While this settlement resolves the private lawsuit, similar claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission remain ongoing.John Deere Inks $99M Deal In Farmers' Right-To-Repair Suit - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Episode 47: Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al.Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al. argued en banc before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2026. Argued by Jack Bartholet (on behalf of Brian Hussey) and Robert M. Loeb (on behalf of the City of Cambridge officials). Case Summary, from the Appellants' Opening Brief: “This case raises fundamental questions about a state employee's right as a citizen to speak out on pending federal legislation — on his own time, at home, via his own private Facebook page, and in a manner that caused no disruption in the eight days before the post came to the attention of his superiors and two months before his suspension — under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…Plaintiff Brian Hussey is a veteran police officer (and now Sergeant) who is a lifelong resident of the City of Cambridge… “In February 2021, Hussey re-posted a WHDH news article on his private Facebook page. The article, entitled “House Democrats reintroduce police reform bill named in honor of George Floyd,” referenced proposed federal legislation on police reform —H.R. 7120, titled the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.” Hussey, believing that naming this landmark legislation after someone who had a long criminal and drug history was inappropriate, posted a comment along with the article's link (featuring a preview that included its headline), writing, “This is what its come to ‘honoring' a career criminal, a thief and druggie … the future of this country is bleak at best.” “Hussey did not identify himself as a Cambridge police officer on his Facebook page or in the post, nor did the post in any way reference his position with the police department…The Department then placed Officer Hussey on administrative leave for approximately two months while they investigated…and ultimately issued him a four-day suspension.” Statement of the Issue, from the Appellants' Opening Brief: Whether the District Court incorrectly applied the balancing test set out in Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Illinois, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) by determining that the City of Cambridge's interest in suppressing plaintiff`s speech on a clear matter of public concern based on its distaste for the speech without any evidence of disruption in operations outweighed the interest of Plaintiff and the public at large in free expression and robust public debate.Resources: Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief Defendants-Appellees' Brief Appellees' En Banc Brief Appellants' En Banc Supplemental Brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
This Day in Legal History: WHO EstablishedOn April 7, 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) was officially established when its constitution entered into force, marking a pivotal moment in the development of international law. The creation of the WHO reflected a growing recognition among nations that public health challenges transcend borders and require coordinated legal and institutional responses. Its constitution set out a broad definition of health as a fundamental human right, helping to shape future legal frameworks and policy discussions worldwide. By joining the organization, member states accepted binding obligations, particularly in the areas of disease surveillance, reporting, and cooperation. These obligations were designed to promote transparency and rapid response to emerging health threats, which had historically spread unchecked due to limited coordination.The WHO's legal framework also empowered the organization to issue regulations and recommendations, including what would later become the International Health Regulations, a key tool in managing global health emergencies. This marked an important shift toward formalized international governance in public health, moving beyond informal cooperation to structured legal commitments. The constitution further established the World Health Assembly, giving member states a forum to negotiate and adopt health-related policies with legal and political significance. Over time, the WHO has played a central role in shaping international responses to pandemics, vaccination efforts, and health equity initiatives. Its authority, while not absolute, carries significant influence in both legal and diplomatic contexts.A group of YouTube creators has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that the company improperly used their copyrighted videos to train its AI video-generation tool, Nova Reel. The plaintiffs claim Amazon bypassed YouTube's technological safeguards to access and download large amounts of video content without permission. According to the complaint, Amazon used automated scraping tools and techniques like rotating IP addresses to avoid detection while extracting videos at scale. The creators argue that this conduct violated both YouTube's terms of service and federal copyright law.The lawsuit specifically alleges violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, focusing on Amazon's alleged circumvention of technological protection measures designed to safeguard content. Plaintiffs claim their videos were then used for Amazon's commercial benefit in developing its AI system, without compensation or consent. They also argue that once content is used to train AI models, it cannot be effectively removed, causing lasting harm to creators. The complaint challenges Amazon's characterization of its training data as “publicly available,” arguing that availability does not equal lawful use.The creators seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose content may have been similarly used. They are asking for damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration that Amazon's actions were willful. The case highlights broader tensions between content creators and AI developers over data sourcing practices. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other AI companies, reflecting a growing wave of litigation in this area.YouTube Creators Say Amazon Scrapes Videos To Train AI - Law360The Supreme Court of the United States has sent a long-running lawsuit over alleged FBI surveillance of Muslims in Southern California back to a lower court for reconsideration. The case, brought by several individuals including Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, claims the FBI unlawfully monitored their community using an informant after 9/11. The justices did not rule on the merits but instead instructed the lower courts to revisit the case in light of new factual developments and the government's motion to dismiss.At the center of the dispute is the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine that allows the government to block litigation if it risks exposing national security information. The FBI has argued that continuing the case could reveal sensitive intelligence methods and weaken this protection. Previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed parts of the lawsuit to move forward, reasoning that courts should not dismiss claims too early without fully examining whether secret evidence is truly necessary. The appellate court suggested possible ways to proceed while protecting classified information, such as limited judicial review of sensitive materials.The Supreme Court's earlier 2022 decision confirmed that the state secrets privilege applies but left open how it should be used in this case. The Ninth Circuit later revived some claims, while still dismissing others against individual agents. The government challenged that ruling, arguing it forces courts to rely on protected information in ways that undermine the privilege. Plaintiffs, however, maintain their case can proceed using non-classified evidence and that the subject matter itself is not a state secret.The remand keeps the case alive but unresolved, requiring the lower courts to reassess whether it can proceed without endangering national security. The outcome could shape how courts handle similar conflicts between civil rights claims and government secrecy.Justices Remand State Secrets Dispute In FBI Spying Case - Law360In my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine how a major IRS modernization effort fell short—not simply because of execution issues, but because of chronic underfunding. A recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration shows that funds from the Inflation Reduction Act that were intended for modernization were largely redirected to cover basic operations. Instead of transforming systems and rebuilding long-term capacity, the IRS used much of the money to sustain staffing and maintain existing IT infrastructure. In my view, this outcome was predictable given the agency's longstanding resource constraints.I explain how budget cuts and workforce reductions undermined the modernization initiative from the start. Even with new funding, the IRS still had to meet its core obligation of processing hundreds of millions of tax returns each year. Faced with those pressures, it prioritized immediate operational needs over long-term upgrades, including spending significant sums on routine IT maintenance. I also point out that contractor spending surged, reflecting a growing reliance on outside support rather than investment in internal expertise.The report highlights inefficiencies as well, including canceled or reworked contracts that consumed large amounts of funding without delivering meaningful results. At the same time, labor costs remained elevated due to the complexities of downsizing, creating a situation where the IRS was both shrinking its workforce and paying contractors to compensate for lost capacity. I argue that this pattern is better understood as institutional outsourcing rather than modernization.Ultimately, I contend that real modernization cannot occur without stable baseline funding for core operations. Without that foundation, any new investment will continue to be diverted toward keeping the agency running. My conclusion is that Congress attempted to modernize the IRS without first ensuring its institutional stability, making the outcome not just disappointing, but largely inevitable. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Washington, D.C.-based Gupta Wessler holds the highest win rate among the top five most active firms practicing before the 6-3 conservative U.S. Supreme Court firms. And they're large, corporate firms “representing corporations that have done bad stuff,” says founder Deepak Gupta. “How do we do that? We do it by appealing – sometimes it's methodologically – to conservative commitments.” In this conversation with hosts Ben Gideon and Rahul Ravipudi, Deepak unpacks how his firm wins and how trial lawyers can protect damages that may go on appeal. Tune in for his description of taking on Uber when it wanted to cap contingency fees in Nevada.Learn More and Connect☑️ Deepak Gupta | LinkedIn☑️ Gupta Wessler on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X☑️ Ben Gideon | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram☑️ Gideon Asen on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Rahul Ravipudi | LinkedIn | Instagram☑️ Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyProduced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by SmartAdvocate, Hype Legal, Expert Institute, Filevine, and Steno.
A group of Jeffrey Epstein survivors has filed a lawsuit against billionaire Les Wexner, the Wexner Foundation, and associated entities, alleging they enabled Epstein's abuse and trafficking operation. The suit, filed in New York, includes multiple plaintiffs from several states who claim they were subjected to gender-motivated violence by Epstein. Central to the allegations is the claim that Wexner provided Epstein with significant financial backing—allegedly totaling around $200 million over years—which allowed Epstein to build and sustain his network. The complaint also points to Wexner's former Manhattan townhouse, arguing it served as a key location where abuse occurred.The lawsuit further argues that Wexner's long-standing relationship with Epstein—including granting him power of attorney over his finances—created the conditions that enabled Epstein's crimes. Plaintiffs claim that without that financial support and access, Epstein would not have been able to operate at the scale he did. Wexner has denied the allegations, stating he had no knowledge of Epstein's wrongdoing and that the claims lack factual basis, insisting the money provided was for legitimate financial management services. The case adds to growing scrutiny of Wexner's role and raises broader questions about how Epstein's network was funded and sustained for so long.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein survivors sue Les Wexner and Wexner Foundation | KXAN Austin
A group of Jeffrey Epstein survivors has filed a lawsuit against billionaire Les Wexner, the Wexner Foundation, and associated entities, alleging they enabled Epstein's abuse and trafficking operation. The suit, filed in New York, includes multiple plaintiffs from several states who claim they were subjected to gender-motivated violence by Epstein. Central to the allegations is the claim that Wexner provided Epstein with significant financial backing—allegedly totaling around $200 million over years—which allowed Epstein to build and sustain his network. The complaint also points to Wexner's former Manhattan townhouse, arguing it served as a key location where abuse occurred.The lawsuit further argues that Wexner's long-standing relationship with Epstein—including granting him power of attorney over his finances—created the conditions that enabled Epstein's crimes. Plaintiffs claim that without that financial support and access, Epstein would not have been able to operate at the scale he did. Wexner has denied the allegations, stating he had no knowledge of Epstein's wrongdoing and that the claims lack factual basis, insisting the money provided was for legitimate financial management services. The case adds to growing scrutiny of Wexner's role and raises broader questions about how Epstein's network was funded and sustained for so long.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein survivors sue Les Wexner and Wexner Foundation | KXAN AustinBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
This Day in Legal History: Marshall PlanOn April 3, 1948, the United States formally enacted the Marshall Plan signing, a landmark legal and economic initiative designed to rebuild war-torn Europe after World War II. Officially known as the Economic Cooperation Act, the law authorized billions of dollars in aid to Western European nations. It represented a major expansion of U.S. foreign policy, grounded in Congress's constitutional power over spending and international commerce. The legislation also reflected a strategic legal response to the growing influence of the Soviet Union, using economic assistance as a tool of containment.The Marshall Plan required participating countries to cooperate with one another, creating legal agreements that promoted trade liberalization and economic integration. This cooperation laid early groundwork for institutions that would later evolve into the European Union. Domestically, the law raised important questions about the limits of federal authority in directing funds abroad and the role of the executive branch in administering large-scale international programs. Congress delegated significant discretion to the executive, particularly the State Department, to oversee implementation.One key legal element of the Marshall Plan was its use of conditional aid, meaning recipient countries had to meet certain economic and political requirements to receive funding. This introduced a model for future foreign aid programs, where compliance with specified conditions became a standard legal mechanism. The program also required oversight and reporting, ensuring accountability for how funds were spent, which helped shape modern administrative law practices.In practice, the Marshall Plan proved highly successful, contributing to rapid economic recovery and political stabilization in Western Europe. It also reinforced the legal concept that economic policy could serve as an instrument of international law and diplomacy. By blending domestic statutory authority with international agreements, the plan set a precedent for how the United States engages in global economic governance.President Donald Trump announced that Attorney General Pam Bondi will step down after serving about 14 months at the Department of Justice. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche will assume the role on an acting basis while Bondi transitions out over the next month. Trump praised Bondi's tenure, highlighting reductions in violent crime and calling her service highly successful. Bondi also expressed pride in her role and indicated she will move into a private-sector position while continuing to support the administration's agenda.Her time in office, however, drew bipartisan criticism, particularly over the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, which Congress had required to be released. Lawmakers from both parties accused the department of mishandling transparency and failing to fully pursue accountability. Some Republicans voiced frustration with delays in releasing information, while Democrats argued Bondi oversaw unequal treatment in related prosecutions.Bondi also faced scrutiny over political pressure to investigate individuals viewed as opponents of the president, raising concerns about the independence of the Justice Department. Her background included prior service as Florida's attorney general and involvement in Trump's political and legal efforts before her appointment.Bondi Out As Attorney General After Contentious Time At DOJ - Law360Trump fires Pam Bondi as US attorney general | ReutersDLA Piper is set to face a rare jury trial in federal court over allegations that it fired a pregnant associate after she requested maternity leave. The lawsuit was brought by Anisha Mehta, who claims she was terminated in 2022 while six months pregnant, shortly after seeking leave. She argues the firm acted to avoid paying her during a period of reduced work and financial pressure.DLA Piper disputes the claims, asserting that Mehta was dismissed for performance issues and did not meet expectations for a senior associate. However, the presiding judge, Analisa Torres, found enough conflicting evidence—such as Mehta's prior bonuses and strong client work—to allow the case to proceed to trial. The claims include violations under federal, state, and New York City anti-discrimination laws, as well as interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act.The case is notable because employment discrimination trials involving large law firms are uncommon, as such disputes are often settled privately. A public trial could expose sensitive internal practices, including evaluation systems and compensation structures.A key legal issue in this case is the protection of employees under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This law guarantees eligible workers the right to take unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons, including pregnancy, without fear of losing their jobs. Mehta's claim centers on whether the firm unlawfully interfered with that right or retaliated against her for attempting to use it.Law firm DLA Piper faces jury trial over pregnancy bias claims | ReutersA federal judge is scrutinizing President Donald Trump's proposal to build a large “Independence Arch” near the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Tanya Chutkan questioned whether the administration has the legal authority to move forward without clear approval from Congress, especially given the scale of the project. The proposed structure, expected to be taller than both the Lincoln Memorial and Paris's Arc de Triomphe, has raised concerns about its impact on a protected historic area.The lawsuit, brought by local residents, seeks to block construction before it begins, arguing that the project could cause irreversible damage to federally protected land. Plaintiffs contend that any major construction on such land requires explicit congressional authorization. The administration, however, argues that Congress previously granted broad authority for structures in that area and delegated oversight to the National Park Service.During the hearing, Judge Chutkan expressed skepticism about whether earlier congressional approvals actually cover a project of this magnitude. She also pressed government lawyers on conflicting signals between official agency statements—describing the project as preliminary—and Trump's public comments suggesting it is moving forward quickly.The judge has not yet ruled on whether to halt the project but is considering an injunction and may require additional disclosures about planning, permits, and contracts. She also asked whether the administration would agree not to proceed without proper approvals.A central legal issue in this case is the separation of powers, particularly Congress's authority over federal land and spending. The dispute turns on whether the executive branch can rely on prior delegations of authority or must obtain new legislative approval for a major project like this.Judge questions Trump plan for ‘Independence Arch' near the National Mall | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Everything you've been told about being a lawyer might be wrong. The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 261 features William "Bill" T. Reid, senior founding partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, one of the nation's leading plaintiff-side commercial litigation firms. Bill is the author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiffs' Law - a bold, straight-talking book that challenges the traditional path pushed by law schools and reframes what it means to build a successful legal career. More than just a career guide, the book is a call to think critically about purpose, impact, and the kind of lawyer you actually want to become. In this episode, we focus on the ideas behind Fighting Bullies - from the realities of BigLaw and the limitations of the billable hour model, to why plaintiffs' law offers a path that combines meaningful work with real opportunity. Bill shares insights from decades of high-stakes litigation and explains why young lawyers should rethink how they define success. Bill is also an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law, where he teaches Complex Financial Litigation and continues to mentor the next generation. This is a conversation about purpose, perspective, and choosing a path that actually aligns with who you are. This episode presented by CallRail Integrated into your case management system, CallRail helps you: Capture every call - even after hours Spot high-value leads instantly Respond faster Get the insights you need to bring in bigger cases Join over 3,000 law firms using CallRail to follow up faster, land bigger cases, and drive growth for your firm. Start your free trial at https://www.callrail.com/legal-services?utm_medium=influencer&utm_source=lawyer-stories
A jury convicted Google and social media giant, Meta, of failing to do enough to prevent the harmful effects of their projects on children. Plaintiffs, including several tribes, argued children too young to be on social media platforms are subjected to bullying and suffer poor self-esteem because of content they encounter online. At the same time, retailers are able to strip personal information from young people—and others who use social media. Does social media have any redeeming value? We'll find out what might change in light of the recent legal decision. Break 1 Music: Current (song) Chuck Copenace (artist) Oshki Manitou (album) Break 2 Music: Save the World (song) Tribz (artist) Trimmed (album)
We Like Shooting - Ep 656 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Gideon Optics (Code: WLSISLIFE) Night Fision (Code: WLSISLIFE) Die Free Co. (Code: WLSISLIFE) Rost Martin (Code: WLSISLIFE) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Second Call Defense Guests: David Warner – www.nextlevelarms.com www.nextlevelmfg.com Next Level Arms (@nextlevelarms) Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171 Public Show Titles GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT [NickLynch] MP5 Speed Loader – Remix This is a remix of Jackmnb's speed loader designed for MP5, with the cartridge slot moved to allow dropping cartridges bullet-first from the back side. A chamfer has been added to facilitate faster and easier filling of the loader. Angles have been modified to enable printing without supports. Note MP5 Mag loader [Benelli] Lupo The Benelli Lupo is a bolt-action rifle highlighted in the ‘Art of Performance' video series for its proprietary barrel engineering. It features a three-step manufacturing process including vacuum heat treatment, electrochemical rifling, and cryogenic Crio treatment to achieve superior accuracy and consistency. The rifle's rigid chassis and harmonized action ensure minimal flex, precise alignment, and out-of-box performance. [Infinite Zero Targets] Rifle Zeroing Targets Infinite Zero Targets provides free printable rifle zeroing targets designed for precise firearm sighting. The page promotes these paper targets alongside the Ballistics Report app for ballistic calculations. No hardware technical gear such as optics or mechanical devices is detailed. Note (Nick) Sig P229 BULLET POINTS GUN FIGHTS No one stepped into the arena this week. GOING BALLISTIC Colorado HB 26-1144: Democrats Amend 3D-Printed Firearms Bill to Avoid Veto Colorado House Bill 1144 (HB 26-1144) targets the use of 3D printers to manufacture guns or gun parts, making it a crime in the state. Democrats revised the bill by removing a provision banning the distribution of digital printing instructions to secure passage and avoid a veto from Gov. Jared Polis. The amended version classifies first offenses as Class I misdemeanors and subsequent offenses as Class 5 felonies. Heeter v. James: Challenge to New York's Body Armor Ban Under the Second Amendment Heeter v. James is a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York challenging New York's body armor ban under the Concealed Carry Improvement Act as a Second Amendment violation. Plaintiffs argue body armor qualifies as an ‘arm' for self-defense, supported by historical precedents like Heller and Bruen, common civilian use, and lack of historical bans. The ban prohibits purchase, acquisition, or sale of protective body coverings by non-eligible civilians, with enforcement by state police. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James: SAF Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Protect Firearms Industry under PLCAA The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with NRA and Independence Institute, filed an amicus brief on March 30, 2026, in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James, challenging New York's law that circumvents the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). SAF argues that New York's statute enables abusive public nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and dealers, undermining PLCAA's protections against meritless litigation campaigns aimed at bankrupting the industry. The brief urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reaffirm PLCAA's safeguards for lawful commerce and Second Amendment rights. Colorado House Bill 1144: 3D Gun Printing Ban Drops Digital Instructions Provision to Avoid Veto (Savage) Colorado's House Bill 1144 originally aimed to ban the manufacture of 3D printed guns and components like high-capacity magazines and receivers, as well as the sale or distribution of digital instructions for printing them. Lawmakers removed the provision on digital instructions after Gov. Jared Polis indicated he would veto the bill otherwise. The amended bill passed a preliminary Senate vote and is expected to be signed into law. Warren-Meeks Letter Demands Data on U.S. Semi-Automatic Firearm Export Licenses (Savage) U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY) sent a letter to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security requesting detailed data on semi-automatic firearm export licenses approved since January 2025. They cite ATF data linking U.S. exports to 20% of crime gun traces in Central America and 37% worldwide outside North America, demanding info on licenses, recipients, and monitoring by April 13, 2026. This follows Biden administration pauses on certain exports and Warren's recent legislation targeting ammunition sales and military-grade weapons. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson: Pro-Gun Control Policies with $30 Million Taxpayer-Funded Armed Security (Savage) Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson supports Illinois' restrictive gun control measures, including a ban on assault-style weapons upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2023, while employing an armed security detail of up to 150 Chicago Police Department officers. This security costs taxpayers approximately $30 million annually. The arrangement highlights a perceived double standard where officials enjoy armed protection amid public firearm restrictions. Rep. Fry Files Amicus Brief in NSSF v. James Seeking SCOTUS Review to Defend Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) (Savage) Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC), leading 54 House colleagues, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) with Senate colleagues, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's decision in NSSF v. James. The brief defends the PLCAA, a 2005 federal law preempting state liability suits against gun manufacturers for criminal misuse of firearms, against New York's public nuisance law. It argues the Second Circuit ruling undermines congressional intent and enables similar state circumventions. Armed Citizen Fights Off Attackers at Arundel Mills Mall, Hanover, Maryland (Savage) On March 28, 2026, an armed citizen at Arundel Mills Mall in Hanover, Maryland, drew a firearm during an assault by three attackers outside Burlington Coat Factory, discharging it and wounding one in the wrist. The attackers fled, leading to a police chase and crash on I-97, resulting in three arrests. The incident highlights civilian self-defense in a Maryland jurisdiction.0 Michigan Lawyer Barton Morris Helps Non-Violent Felons Restore Gun Rights via Federal DOJ Program (Savage) A Michigan lawyer, Barton Morris, assists non-violent felons who have completed their sentences in petitioning for firearm rights restoration through a proposed U.S. Department of Justice program. Michigan state law currently prohibits these individuals, such as those convicted of drug offenses, drunk driving, or theft, from owning guns post-sentence. An example is Clarence Overstreet, who filed a petition after a past cocaine possession conviction to protect his family and hunt. Calce v. City of New York Calce v. City of New York challenges New York City's ban on civilian possession of stun guns and tasers in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (docket 25-861). The district court granted summary judgment to the city in March 2025, ruling plaintiffs failed to prove common use for Second Amendment protection. Oral arguments occurred, focusing on whether ‘common use' is a plaintiff burden under Bruen or shifts to the government. Ohio SB 392: Freedom to Carry Act Ohio Senate Bill 392, introduced on March 23, 2026, seeks to reform state weapons carry laws by expanding concealed carry beyond handguns to other deadly weapons, renaming licenses to concealed weapons licenses, and lowering the licensing age from 21 to 18. It permits licensed carry of concealed deadly weapons excluding ‘exclusive deadly weapons' defined as dangerous ordnance or federally/state-prohibited items, and allows loaded firearm possession in vehicles. The bill remains in the introduced stage amid Ohio's Republican legislative supermajorities. REVIEWS Review: The 5th cast member from Oregon From The 5th cast member If I visited each of the cast members. Sean First I would ask to see vault and when he took me to the gun vault I'd say no I mean the vault of money but you don't tell the other cast members about. Then we would take some time digging through all of the boxes of gear that he has been given by sponsors of the show over the years that he's never even opened or look at. Poring me a drink of something suspicious but claim it is some sort of Old world drink to see you. Sure few drinks probably want to show me a smooth child by balls which of course would scar me for life but they're really weird part would be with his pants down asking me if I want to play some hockey. Savige He would show me all of his communist compliant guns. Which wouldn't really actually be very many. Explain to me all of the conspiracy theories around the government in the state and federal. To ask if I wanted to join him secret group that was planning the next January 6th type event only he would call it January 7th as if that was enough secret seat to avoid being obvious. I received there believing I was just been trapped by an FBI informed. Aaron Quickly after meeting Erin he would want to show me the book he's been working on “the art of working” I'm genuinely act interested not to crushes dreams of becoming some sort of Tom Clancy. Then he would give me a 2 hour tutorial on how to use indeed. Followed by a house to get fired but still get the maximum unemployment benefits. Jarami I probably meet him at his gun store first. Shoot his “Part 2 because you wouldn't let me text the whole story. Nick
Episode 283-Fighting the Gun Records Cover-up Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 283 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun lawyer, John Petrolino, Citizens Committee, New Jersey, carry permits, African American applicants, retired police officers, freedom of information, institutionalized racism, constitutional carry, national reciprocity, Second Amendment, anti-knife movement, UK gun laws, knife control. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, we are currently watching with great expectation here over a lawsuit that has been brought and filed by our good friend John Petrolino with the help and assistance of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (ccrkba.org) And what is going on here is very interesting, because John, who many of you know, does excellent reporting on firearm issues, particularly on New Jersey as well. He does great extensive coverage. Well, John was instrumental in having the permit to carry statistics getting publicized and put out there. And with it being put into the ether and made part of an awareness that otherwise really wasn’t there about the key discovery he made regarding blacks, black carry applicants. African American applicants are denied more than double their white counterparts for non-criminal reasons. Okay? Evan Nappen 01:55 And John, he requested the records seeking the statistics on retired police officer carry permits to build on the coverage of all as to who has been denied. So, remember retired police officers in New Jersey can get the RLEO, the Retired Law Enforcement Officer, Card, which in effect functions as a carry permit for retired law enforcement. Prior to the Bruen decision, where it was virtually impossible for folks to get carries, Retired Officers through the RLEO were able to get their carry in that manner. Now, of course, there’s been even more progress where LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act) also covers law enforcement and actually covers New Jersey law enforcement, which to large degree makes even needing a retired law enforcement carry not as necessary as it used to be. But still, it is something that is done, that is issued. Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:14 John requested through, you know, essentially New Jersey’s freedom of information to get the records so that we can continue the further analysis. And what I have here is a news release from Citizens Committee. (https://ccrkba.org/ccrkba-director-sues-nj-officials-over-denied-records-requests/) And what it says, as noted in the complaint, “Plaintiff and the public has a strong interest in ascertaining the relationship between the demographics of carry permit holders amongst the general public and retired law enforcement officers including but not limited to county location, race, sex and the effect of potentially disqualifying criteria in the application population as well as the success rate for the appeal process within the New Jersey State Police.” “Having established Petrolino was deprived of his common law right of access the New Jersey Civil Rights Act was violated, the clear remedy is injunctive relief compelling the production of the records to Petrolino . . .” It continues, “The NJSP”, meaning New Jersey State Police, “has denied countless records requests that I’ve made over the years, never fulfilling even one”, Director Petrolino said. “When I emailed them about these denials, an unnamed person at NJSP basically told me to sue them — so here we are.” Evan Nappen 04:46 That’s right. And as further noted in the news release, “Records concerning the retired police officer permits are about as public as you can get,” says Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Do they have the same level of perceived bias in their permitting statistics? Or perhaps worse yet, do they not? The public has a right to know this information. We laud Director Petrolino in his quest to hold New Jersey officials accountable by forcing them to be transparent with those they swore to serve.” Yes, it is very important that these records get out there, because the current records already show the institutionalized racism that occurs in carry permitting systems. That alone should stand for why we should have Constitutional Carry in New Jersey, where you do not need any permit, as do the majority of the United States. They have no permit required, and it is something that is not necessary, nor in full exercise of the Second Amendment. We should not even be required to need a permission slip. And this illustrates the reasons why. Because the surest way to avoid the racial discrimination, to avoid these type of coverups over records, is to not have to have the records at all, by having what is lovingly called Constitutional Carry. Evan Nappen 06:34 You may have heard there’s a bill federally being pursued to have National Constitutional Carry, which would preempt all states and make it so that any law-abiding citizen can carry without any permit anywhere in the U.S. Now, as a step in between getting to that would be national reciprocity, where every State has to at least recognize every other state’s carry permit, although the majority of states don’t even require carry permits anymore. So, this is what we’re working toward, because this is fundamental to our rights. The ability to carry, the ability to be defenders and not victims, and the fight continues. This is yet another important, very important, step in the fight. As it reveals, and has the potential to reveal, the flaws and other problems that go to bias, racism, arbitrary denials, discouragement built into the system itself. These are all the mechanisms that permitting systems are designed to create. They’re actually made to do this. They’re made to discourage. The idea that it has anything to do with public safety is, of course, a joke, and it’s proven by the Constitutional carry states that are doing just fine without the permission slip. So, in the states that have this still in place, it’s there to be a barrier to the exercise of our rights. Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 08:28 And you know, it’s kind of laughable to see the Left talk about how outrageous it is, unbelievably outrageous, how it’s Jim Crow 2.0, to require an ID to vote. To vote! That’s Jim Crow. But what goes on with carry permits, with gun licensing? Oh, that’s fine. Well, if that’s Jim Crow 2.0, gun laws are Jim Crow 2000. It’s insanity then, Okay? That’s what’s going on in that radical difference. Teddy Nappen 09:10 Honestly, Dad, it makes me think back to Shaneen Allen, where, you remember, we reached out to all the pro black groups, all the others, like bringing. Evan Nappen 09:22 Right! Teddy Nappen 09:22 They were going to put a single black mom in jail for doing nothing more wrong than. Evan Nappen 09:28 Seven years, with three and a half years minimum mandatory, was their best offer when I took on the case. Teddy Nappen 09:35 Yep, reached out to Al Sharpton’s group, the NCAA, anything? Evan Nappen 09:39 Everybody, right! Teddy Nappen 09:41 Nothing. Crickets. Evan Nappen 09:43 Crickets. Teddy Nappen 09:44 Because there is a built-in reason. These people, the Left are just Marxists. And when it comes to Marxists, they have no standards. It’s about oppressor and oppressee, and it doesn’t matter what position we must take. Because that’s how you end up with Queers for Palestine. That’s how you end up with the fact that they’re pushing actual racist gun laws. Because that is the standard. Because it has to be. No, no. We have to make sure these people are disarmed so we can keep the oppressor / oppressee mindset continuing. Sorry, we can’t side and agree with common sense issues like civil rights. Evan Nappen 10:26 And the most fundamental of all civil rights is the right to be armed. I mean, look right now at what’s going on in Iran. Gee, why haven’t the people risen up to get rid of that evil, terroristic, ruthless regime? Page – 4 – of 11 Why? They don’t have the guns. They don’t have the guns. That’s the problem. That is the big problem. And we have, as an insurance policy in America the Second Amendment, and it’s a check on tyranny. Okay? Enemies, both foreign and domestic, all right? This is why it’s there. And you can see countries that have disarmed their civilian population, and then you see what they do to them. You can see that taking place. Not just in countries as extreme as Iran, or as extreme even as North Korea, or others, what we think of as dictatorships or totalitarian states. But just look now at the U.K. and what is going on there. And Teddy, I think in Press Checks, you’re going to be talking about that, and there you can see what. I’m not going to, we’ll just put that as a little teaser. We’re going to get into that, and it’s critical. So, I want to applaud John Petrolino and Citizens Committee (CCRKBA.org) for pushing to get these records, and as we can expose the cover up. Because why? Why not release them? What is it that they’re so afraid of us finding out, right? You know, there’s something there. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. There’s something going on there, and I can’t wait to find out the truth. We will get to the truth. Evan Nappen 12:25 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a fantastic range down in Lakewood, New Jersey, where Teddy and I shoot. We got our training and certificates at WeShoot, and it’s a great resource, as well. They are having a big March Madness sale, and this sale is going until Tuesday the 31st. Here’s some of these deals in their March Madness. First of all, they have, for only $249, you can have a family membership with unlimited range access passes, priority lane assignment, 5 free guest passes, 3% instant cash back in rewards, 5% off accessories, special pricing on ammo and targets. This includes a spouse and all children under 21. This is regularly $425 for a family membership. Valid until 3/31. You can get this fantastic deal for only $249. This is a fantastic bargain. You’ll be able to access the wonderful range and all of these great benefits that WeShoot offers. So, you want to check out WeShoot in Lakewood. Go to their website, weshootusa.com. So this is a great family membership sale. Evan Nappen 14:07 They’re also offering, in the March Madness sale, 20% off all their used guns. Twenty percent off all used guns. That is a fantastic sale. You want to go there and see what great pre-loved guns are there, which you can acquire for a 20% discount. They’re also offering 10% off all Savior Range Bags and Accessories. These are, of course, the wonderful Savior products, and they are doing 10% on that for their March Madness. So, go to WeShoot and check out these great sales. You can get fantastic deals on firearms and a family membership. What a great way to have great family time, what a great family activity. Take your family to the range, enjoy a great day of shooting, and really celebrate being an American in this 250th year of our birth here in this great country. And do it at WeShoot. Evan Nappen 15:30 Let me also mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They are the stalwart defenders of our Second Amendment rights in New Jersey. They are the key group, and you need to belong to the Association. Make sure you belong. We’re going to have a bigger fight now coming up with our new governor, who will be on the same path as the old governor, being an oppressor of gun rights. You can rest assured that we’re going to be dealing with all kinds of stuff, and we’ll be talking about it on the show. But make sure you belong to the preeminent gun rights group in Page – 5 – of 11 New Jersey, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. You can join them at anjrpc.org, anjrpc.org. Evan Nappen 16:21 I must shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law, the Bible of New Jersey gun law. Make sure you get your copy. It will help you not to become a GOFU in New Jersey. I’ve written it to protect my fellow gun owners, and you can get your copy at EvanNappen.com. Just go to EvanNappen.com and order your copy. You’ll be glad you did. It’s over 500 pages. Yeah, that’s what it takes to try to make any sense of New Jersey gun laws, and it’s all done in a question and answer format to make it as user friendly as we possibly can. Teddy, what do you have for us today? Teddy Nappen 17:12 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I always want to look to, what would the Left do, if the Left had unfettered power? Let’s say Kamala won, the House and Senate are in their favor, and they followed James Carville’s, you know, we’re going to pack the Court. Also, you know, make Puerto Rico a state and everything that they can, so they can pass whatever agenda. What does that look like? I always will point to Canada and then much further along, the U.K. In the U.K., one of the things that has been very prevalent in their politics is there have been a heavy push of the anti-knife movement. You know, they already cracked down as hard as they possibly could on guns. Evan Nappen 18:07 So, now they need some other inanimate object to blame. Teddy Nappen 18:10 Correct! And I was looking to, okay, who is the “EveryTown” of the U.K.’s anti-knife movement? Who is the group that is pushing for all this? What is the driving force? Because there’s always some group. There’s always one. There’s always the, you know, Moms Demand Action, which is also funded by “EveryTown”. You also have Giffords. You have all these groups. Who is the one pushing for this in the U.K.? And they’re very proud of it. They admitted it on their site, “Blades Down” group. (https://bladesdown.co.uk/) It is an organization founded in the U.K. “Blades Down exists to protect young lives and strengthen communities. We work with young people and families to prevent knife crime through education, . . .” oh, propaganda, “. . . early intervention . . .” Ah, legislation to take away your rights. “. . . and practical skills.” Oh, practical skills, so you can make clear your argument for wanting to disarm your people. “By building confidence, promoting safer choices and equipping communities with life saving knowledge . . .” I love how they dress all that stuff up. And by the way, they love how they promote that we’ve removed 199 knives out of our community. Evan Nappen 19:30 199 knives. Oh, my. Okay. Teddy Nappen 19:35 Amazing. Okay. Page – 6 – of 11 Evan Nappen 19:36 A whole 199? Yeah, wow. Teddy Nappen 19:39 And I love the advertisement. I thought a knife would protect me. I didn’t know it would change everything. Evan Nappen 19:46 You know, interestingly, about knives and protection. That is the gateway self-defense tool for women, believe it or not. Studies have shown that when women want to defend themselves, and if they’re not otherwise trained in any other type of defense, they will often go first to a knife, because they are most comfortable with knives. Normally, you know, having grown up in the kitchen, etc, there’s a familiarity to a knife. So, the knife becomes the first weapon used by women, often those that are victims of domestic violence or have been victims of crime, etc. And then once they want to grow from the knife as their primary self-defense tool, they will often discover firearms, and that is very interesting. Because what the U.K. is doing is they want to ban knives. They want everyone to be defenseless, particularly women who would go to knives even first. Teddy Nappen 21:08 They saw the article about the little girl defending herself against the pedophile and. Evan Nappen 21:13 Correct! Teddy Nappen 21:14 With a knife, and they thought, right. We have to disarm the little girl to make sure the pedophile isn’t hurt. Evan Nappen 21:20 Yeah, so in the U.K., folks don’t realize, but historically, believe it or not, the modern, the modern gun ban, gun rights oppression movement actually came here from the U.K. after World War One. This had taken effect in the U.K., and the same political forces started the movement in the United States to go after guns. And originally, they were successful in going state by state, getting different states to pass gun laws. So much so that the NRA back then, I mean, they were naive. They actually had what were called the model gun laws, and they were putting out to states. This is the National Rifle Association. They put out to states what were the model gun laws that NRA wanted to see passed. It was essentially the NRA supporting gun laws. And they focused on, number one, things other than firearms. And remnants of that law going back 1920s era, back then. Evan Nappen 22:57 Those remnants are in New Jersey’s law. They actually have roots going back to what the NRA pursued back then, out of naivete. I mean, they were, you know, plainly naive about it. But this is why, and also the head of the NRA at the time was a kind of a, he was pro-oppression, pro-gun rights oppression. You know, he was always kind of a problematic guy that you would never think today would Page – 7 – of 11 be ahead of that organization. But regardless, they pushed these state model, state gun laws. And so, if you look, for example, where New Jersey had the ban on blackjacks, switchblades, slungshot, etc, this kind of thing, which then became slingshots because they didn’t know what a slungshot was. Well, that actually goes back to the model gun laws that NRA was pushing. It even contained elements for permitting, for carry and all that kind of stuff, way back. Evan Nappen 24:05 And that actually originated and came to NRA from England. It came over from the U.K., and it planted the groundwork in the States. Then what happened was it became too much with different states, not blah, blah, blah, and it went national. And by the time it went national, well, what was it? It was the NFA, the National Firearms Act. And the National Firearms Act was looked at, look, we can just get a one federal law. We don’t have to do these state laws. And that’s why, when the National Firearms Act finally passed in the form that it became, and I read through all the committee hearings, watching the NFA progress. It originally, the original NFA wanted to ban all handguns. They wanted to ban all, not just full auto, but all semi autos and full autos, and magazines over 12 rounds. That was the original, original NFA. And then through the committees, you saw them say, well, okay, what do we allow? 22 handguns. And then, okay, well, how about we keep semi-autos. And then you see, and then it finally took shape to what it is as we know it today. Evan Nappen 25:23 At the time, the NRA, in The Rifleman, you know, in the “American Rifleman” magazine, said we’ve solved the gun control problem for America, and they were proud of it. And look, I’m not doing or saying this to bash NRA. It’s not why. We’ve got to know the true history of our mistakes. Okay? And it was mistake. We see it now, plain as can be. It was plainly a mistake, but it happened. We need to recognize it, and we need to try to fix past mistakes. You know, ignoring them and putting them under the rug isn’t a good idea. So, know this history, okay? Because we don’t want to repeat this history. And yet here, Teddy, you see with knives. We don’t have, yet, in this country, an anti-knife movement in the way we have an anti-gun movement. But once they take care of getting their agenda of oppressing and disarming and disenfranchising us of gun rights, you can rest assured that it’ll be knives next. Teddy Nappen 26:28 Well, I’ll give you a worse one for you. This is something they push right now. By the way, this is out of Ellsmore Port. (https://bladesdown.co.uk/ellesmere-port-leading-the-way-with-safer-knife-swaps/a/) Leading the way for safer knife, for safer knife swaps. “Blades Down” has created a community supported with local families to do the “Let’s Be Blunt” campaign, where you can exchange your kitchen knives for safer alternatives. Literally turning in sharp knives so you can have a dull knife. If I could write a Monty Python, this would be it. You’ve heard of the Ministry of Silly Walks. Here’s the Ministry of Dull Knives. These people are retarded with the things that they are actually pushing for. Literally the Ministry of Dull Knives. Evan Nappen 27:19 That’s the best! Page – 8 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 27:20 Dull knives. Evan Nappen 27:22 Okay, listen, man. The whole world of knives. I mean, I’m into knives as much as guns. Is what knives will stay sharpest the longest? How great an edge can you hold on the knife? Make it as sharp and sharpening his whole knives. And here, the whole effort is pushing “dull knives”. That is hilarious. Hilarious. Evan Nappen 27:43 What? Teddy Nappen 27:43 It gets even worse. Then they said, oh, we need a crackdown. They’re pushing the Government to crack down on Facebook Marketplace because people are buying kitchen knives on Facebook Marketplace without age verification. Huh? What does that sound? Quite familiar. Think of Gun Broker. Think of any other thing. This is what they do. They crack down on any forms of, you know, freedom finding a way, and by the director. And so I traced it. I went even further. Okay, who is funding this group? Who’s their Bloomberg ass group? Who is pushing for all this? Apparently, it is out of this group known as the Ben Kinsella Trust. (https://bladesdown.co.uk/facebook-marketplace-knives-being-sold-without-age-verification/) And this is the U.K. London crackdown on knives, where, you know, have pushed all the laws of trying to stop people from possessing knives. Have pushed for all the anti-knife laws. They’re the ones funding all this group. Guess who’s one of their sponsors? Facebook! Teddy Nappen 27:44 They’re literally complaining about Facebook Marketplace having that, but also Facebook is their sponsor. Evan Nappen 28:29 That’s hilarious. Well. Teddy Nappen 28:29 But this is the thing. Big tech is not your friend. They absolutely supported the Democrat Party. They are the number one funder of the Democrat movement. When it comes to rights, they do not care. So, it’s just disgusting. And remember, in the U.K. for laws, the maximum penalty for illegally carrying a knife is up to four years in State Prison. If you, quote, unquote, here’s it, “you have to have a good reason for carrying your knife.” What are the good reasons ? For your work, for religious purposes, and for a national costume. I like how that was a reason. Evan Nappen 29:36 A national costume. Yeah. Page – 9 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 29:39 Because you can’t say national, you know, like Scots carrying their Dirks. No, no, no. You can’t be too nationalistic here. And, of course, they have their rigmarole ban lists of knives that we’ve talked about. Evan Nappen 29:50 Well, you know, New Jersey’s knife ban, quote, unquote, does talk about, under subsection D, “manifest lawful purpose”, which seems to be pretty damn vague anyway. And with Bruen talking about right to defense outside the home, I think that law is ripe to be attacked. So, it’s in a way, similar, but it’s not. The problem there is on outside the home for carry. Whereas you’re exempted under other weapons, subsection D, you have an exemption under N.J.S. 2C:39-6e., to possess knives in your home. When it comes to carrying them, then you need a “manifest lawful purpose”, which is very similar to what the U.K. has. However, they’re actually going way further. They’re wanting to ban. They have the knife surrender bins. They’re actually doing a “dull your knife” campaign, stupid like that. Actually, you know, some people like you think, like, if you really hate somebody, it’s like, I’m going to slice you up with a dull knife, right? That’s even worse. But maybe that’s where they’re going. Teddy Nappen 31:09 Don’t worry. They’re doing their best cracking down on the rapes from going from 19,000 to 70,000 in the UK, because they let mass migration in from individuals who, you know, let’s just say don’t. Evan Nappen 31:22 No, no, Teddy, it’s not cause of them. It’s cause of knives. It’s because of knives. Teddy Nappen 31:25 Yeah, that’s the issue. Evan Nappen 31:26 It’s knives. Stabbings. It’s sharp knives. Sharp knives are the reason for the massive increase of rapes. If we at least have dull knives, we’ll address that issue, right? Teddy Nappen 31:40 Yeah, and the rampant stabbings are from which individuals? Sorry, we can’t report on that because that’s racist. Evan Nappen 31:46 Oh, right. So, this is one thing, though. You can still buy unregistered knives in America. You can buy knives, and there’s no permit required. Yet! There’s no place that I’m aware of anywhere in the U.S. that requires a knife permit. Now, you may think that’s outrageous. Who would? How could they ever pass a law to require you to have a permit for a knife? Well, let me tell you, right now. I have a knife permit that permits a serialized knife that was done by Russia. Russia. Soviet Union. I have the actual permit and the knife that goes with the permit. It’s just a very basic, five-inch blade hunting knife. They had knife control, knife registration, and you needed a permit. And I bet, in the U.K., they want to do something similar, right? Page – 10 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 32:54 Funny enough. That’s in their charter. That’s in the “Blades Down” charter. Demanding. Evan Nappen 32:59 There you go. How did I know? How did I guess that? Teddy Nappen 33:01 Amazing. It’s amazing. It’s almost like they don’t even hide it anymore, that they are Marxists and push Soviet styles. It’s how you have Mamdani. Evan Nappen 33:10 Exactly! Teddy Nappen 33:12 With the Government-run groceries, which I love. One of my friends, is like, it’s not Soviet because they still allow for other grocery stores. Oh, really? What do you think happens when you run up a Government grocery store? What happens to the other grocery stores? They’re gonna fold and leave. Like it’s, it’s the level of how are they this retarded? Do they not pick it up, like it’s? Evan Nappen 33:39 Well, they have an agenda, of course. But listen, the important thing is, stock up on knives. Buy as many knives as you want to and can afford. They’ll have, you’ll have all of these “no-paper knives”. Now is your golden opportunity to buy and stock up knives of all types and sizes and shapes. If you want to understand all the knife laws, well, look in my book, New Jersey Gun Laws. I do a very thorough explanation of New Jersey’s knife laws, and you can still get knives by mail. You can still possess them without any special permits or permission, and there’s no registration of knives. And here’s the kicker. Knives are still protected under the Second Amendment. It’s not the right to keep and bear guns. It’s the right to keep and bear arms. And knives are arms, as well as very utilitarian with multi purposes. They end up being pretty good investments, too, depending on what you want to collect. So, happy knife hoarding. Just shake your head when you look around at what the formerly Great Britain is doing. Evan Nappen 35:01 Hey, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU, which is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. And we love to talk about GOFUs, because it’s actual cases, real things, where people have made mistakes. You get to learn very inexpensively, for free, what others have made costly errors regarding guns and firearms and what we care so much about. This week’s GOFU is about AI. Let me just tell you. You know, AI is interesting. It’s fun. It has a lot of potential, but don’t rely on AI for your gun law advice or for anything along those lines. If you use, you know, these AI platforms, any of this stuff, and you ask them questions, you better verify and get confirmation. Because these AI responses, they can hallucinate. They give supposedly law that isn’t even actual law. I mean, we’ve seen actual cases with clients getting into trouble because they’re relying on AI, which is, at this time, utterly unreliable. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have good uses and purpose, and it may have great things in the future, all that, all that. Page – 11 – of 11 But right now, folks. If you go to AI as your source, so that you don’t want to get into trouble under New Jersey gun law, you are making a big mistake, a big GOFU. Evan Nappen 36:52 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 37:03 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E283_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America. Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL. Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits. Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";
In this episode of The Lobby Shop, hosts Caitlin Sickles, Paul Nathanson, Dane Pedersen and Omar Nashashibi, are joined by Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg following the Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources v. United States, striking down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Woldenberg discusses why he stepped forward as the lead plaintiff, the stakes behind the case, and what the ruling means for companies seeking tariff refunds. The conversation also explores how the administration may recalibrate its trade strategy—and what comes next for businesses navigating an uncertain tariff environment. This is a joint episode with the Talking with One Voice podcast.
In this episode of Talking with One Voice, hosts Omar Nashashibi, Caitlin Sickles, Paul Nathanson, and Dane Pedersen speak with Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg following the landmark Supreme Court decision in Learning Resources v. United States, which struck down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Woldenberg explains why he chose to step forward as the lead plaintiff, the legal and business stakes behind the case, and what the ruling means for companies now navigating potential tariff refunds. This is a joint episode with Bracewell's The Lobby Shop podcast.
This Day in Legal History: ACA Signed into LawOn March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, marking a transformative moment in American legal and social policy. The statute, widely known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sought to expand access to health insurance and reduce overall healthcare costs. Central to the law was the individual mandate, which required most Americans to obtain health insurance or face a financial penalty. The ACA also significantly expanded Medicaid eligibility, allowing millions of low-income individuals to gain coverage. Another key provision prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, reshaping longstanding industry practices.Almost immediately after its passage, the law faced a wave of legal challenges from states, private parties, and advocacy groups. Critics argued that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by compelling individuals to engage in commerce. The dispute reached the Supreme Court in the landmark case of NFIB v. Sebelius. In a closely divided decision, the Court held that the individual mandate could not be sustained under the Commerce Clause. However, Chief Justice John Roberts authored the controlling opinion that upheld the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.The Court also addressed the ACA's Medicaid expansion, ruling that Congress could not coerce states into expanding coverage by threatening existing Medicaid funding. This aspect of the decision reinforced limits on federal power under the Spending Clause and preserved a degree of state sovereignty. The ACA continued to generate litigation in subsequent years, including challenges to its subsidy structure and individual mandate enforcement. Despite these legal battles, the law remains a central feature of the U.S. healthcare system. Its passage and judicial review reshaped modern constitutional interpretation, particularly regarding the balance between federal authority and individual liberty.A California federal jury found that Elon Musk committed securities fraud in connection with his $44 billion attempt to acquire Twitter. After roughly 20 hours of deliberation, the jury concluded that two of Musk's May 2022 tweets misled investors about the status of the deal and the prevalence of fake or spam accounts on the platform. In particular, his statement that the deal was “temporarily on hold” while awaiting bot data was deemed materially misleading. The jury also found liability for a later tweet suggesting bots made up at least 20% of users and that the deal could not proceed without proof.However, jurors rejected the broader claim that Musk engaged in an overall scheme to defraud investors. They also declined to find liability for statements he made at a tech conference, determining those remarks were not proven to be fraudulent. The class of affected investors included those who traded Twitter stock or related options between May and October 2022 and claimed they suffered losses due to artificially depressed prices. While the jury did not calculate a final damages figure, plaintiffs' counsel estimated potential damages at about $2.6 billion.The verdict form instead required jurors to assess damages across 98 separate trading days, meaning total compensation will depend on individual trading activity. Plaintiffs' attorneys characterized the decision as a win for market integrity, emphasizing that even high-profile figures must comply with securities laws. Musk's legal team, by contrast, downplayed the outcome and indicated plans to appeal. The case featured testimony from Twitter executives, deal advisers, and co-founder Jack Dorsey, as well as disputes over whether Twitter accurately reported bot activity.Jury Says Musk Defrauded Twitter Investors In $44B Buyout - Law360The White House, under Donald Trump, released a legislative framework urging Congress to override state-level artificial intelligence regulations in favor of a single national standard. The administration argues that a patchwork of state laws creates unnecessary obstacles for innovation and weakens the United States' ability to compete globally in AI development. At the same time, the proposal preserves certain areas of state authority, including laws addressing fraud, consumer protection, child safety, zoning, and state government use of AI.The framework also addresses intellectual property concerns, recommending that courts continue to decide whether training AI systems on copyrighted material violates the law. It suggests Congress consider mechanisms that allow creators to collectively negotiate compensation from AI companies without triggering antitrust issues. Additionally, it calls for federal protections against unauthorized AI-generated replicas of individuals' likeness, voice, or identity, while allowing exceptions for news and satire.Another key focus is infrastructure, with proposals to prevent rising electricity costs from being passed on to consumers as AI data centers expand. The plan encourages faster federal permitting and supports alternative energy solutions to power AI development. It also includes provisions aimed at preventing government pressure on tech companies to censor speech and ensuring that federal data can be used to train AI systems.The proposal has drawn mixed reactions. Industry groups and several Republican lawmakers praised the approach as promoting innovation through lighter regulation. In contrast, consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers criticized it as favoring large technology companies while removing important state-level protections. Some Democrats have introduced legislation to block the initiative and preserve states' authority to regulate AI.White House Pushes Congress To Override State AI Laws - Law360 UKThe U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case involving Mississippi's law that allows certain mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day but arrive up to five business days later. The dispute stems from a challenge brought by Republican groups, including the Republican National Committee, which argue that the law conflicts with federal election statutes. The Trump administration is supporting this challenge, continuing its broader push to restrict mail-in voting.Mississippi enacted the rule in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with bipartisan support. It applies to limited categories of voters, such as the elderly, disabled individuals, and those temporarily away from home. However, in 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the law likely violates federal law, which it interpreted as requiring ballots to be both cast and received by Election Day. The court concluded that states cannot extend the deadline for receiving ballots beyond that date.The Supreme Court is now reviewing Mississippi's appeal of that decision, with potentially broad implications. Roughly 30 states and Washington, D.C. have similar policies that count ballots arriving after Election Day if they were mailed on time. A ruling against Mississippi could therefore force significant changes to voting procedures nationwide and limit the use of mail-in ballots.The case also reflects ongoing political disputes over election integrity and access to voting. Republicans have raised concerns about the security of mail-in ballots, while critics argue that restrictions could reduce voter participation. The outcome of this case may clarify how federal election law interacts with state authority over voting procedures.US Supreme Court weighs Republican bid to limit mail-in voting | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This week, a federal judge temporarily blocked HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s overhaul of the childhood vaccine schedule and his appointments of vaccine skeptics to a key CDC advisory committee. Asha and Renato explain why agencies must follow administrative legal procedures and how RFK Jr.'s disregard for science and scientific expertise rankled the judge. Plus, they review the latest ruling from Judge James E. Boasberg, who rebuked the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C., led by former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, in its investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Renato and Asha examine how Pirro failed to meet the super low threshold of obtaining a subpoena and why the judge found the probe improperly motivated. They discuss how Boasberg's and Powell's pushback in the Trump era shows the legal system is still at work. Listen up! Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction - in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedyhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70722326/291/american-academy-of-pediatrics-v-kennedy/· Memorandum Opinion – Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. United States of America https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72490330/23/in-re-grand-jury-subpoenas/ Asha Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/Subscribe to our podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicatedFollow Asha on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.socialFollow Renato on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/renatomariotti.bsky.socialFollow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/Cruise with us! https://www.travelstore.com/group-travel/its-complicated-cruise-2026/Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Become a member of the Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/20off Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Subscribe to the Intersection with Michael Popok podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intersection-with-michael-popok/id1818863274 Subscribe to Unprecedented with Michael Popok and Dina Doll podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unprecedented-by-legal-af/id1867023089 Subscribe to Court of History with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-court-of-history/id1867022920 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Episode 103 Across Massachusetts, a series of fires began targeting places tied to faith and patriotism — Protestant churches, American Legion halls, and other community institutions closely associated with “God and country.” From the beginning, investigators knew they were dealing with arson. At scene after scene, the same method appeared: windows smashed to gain entry, gasoline used as an accelerant, and fires intentionally set inside the buildings. The pattern was obvious, but proving the same person was responsible for all of them was another matter entirely. For a long time, investigators had little more than the method of operation linking the fires together. Then the suspect made a mistake. At one scene, a hammer was left behind — a small piece of evidence that investigators were able to connect to another fire through forensic analysis. It was the first physical link tying two of the crimes together. But even then, most of the fires remained connected only by pattern, timing, and method. The investigation would continue until the suspect was finally caught in the act, bringing an end to a string of arsons that had targeted both houses of worship and patriotic institutions across the state. In this episode of Crime to Burn, we break down the investigation, the forensic evidence, and how investigators ultimately stopped a serial firestarter. Buy Burn Boston Burn by Wayne M. Miller: https://a.co/d/ipCuGL2 Buy Bang Boom Burn by Wayne M. Miller: https://a.co/d/a2EACYf The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified. Inner Sanctum Acknowledgments: Eternal gratitude to our Inner Sanctum patrons, Melanie Curtis, Jenny Mercer and Laura Pisciotta, for helping us bring light to the stories others would rather leave in the ashes. Listener discretion is advised. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review. If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet. SOURCES: Miller, Wayne M. Bang Boom Burn: Explosive True Crime Gun, Bombing, and Arson Cases from a Federal Agent's Career. AuthorHouse, 2021. ISBN 978-1-7333403-5-9. Hardiman, Thomas, et al. Dr. Thomas Hardiman, Affiliated Foot Care, PC, Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, Defendant. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914f558add7b0493498a0b6 Kocsis, R. N. (2004). Psychological Profiling of Serial Arson Offenses: An Assessment of Skills and Accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(3), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803262586 Patriot Ledger Staff. (2010, October 6). Prosecutor: Plymouth arsonist wanted to go back to jail. The Patriot Ledger. https://www.patriotledger.com/story/news/2010/10/06/prosecutor-plymouth-arsonist-wanted-to/40167801007/
From the first day of 1L year, the pressure to compete with your peers can feel overwhelming. But what if the secret to a fulfilling legal career isn't a higher grade, but a deeper connection?In this episode of the ABA Law Student Podcast, host Eve Albert sits down with Spencer Pahlke, a trial attorney at WalkUp, Melodia, Kelly, and Schoenberger and a lecturer at Berkeley Law. Spencer breaks down the realities of a plaintiff's side practice—from representing those who have suffered catastrophic injuries to the chaotic, exciting "mishmash" of a typical workday.We dive deep into the power of the plaintiff's bar, the importance of pay transparency in the legal field, and how the National Plaintiff's Law Association (NPLA) is helping students get their foot in the door. Plus, learn about fortheplaintiff.org, a platform offering students paid opportunities to work on real-world projects. Whether you're a 3L weighing your career options or a 1L looking for community, this conversation offers a roadmap for finding passion and purpose beyond the classroom.(00:00) - Intro: Shifting from Competition to Community (01:22) - Meet Spencer Pahlke: Trial Attorney and Berkeley Law Lecturer (03:32) - Defining Plaintiff's Side Practice and Catastrophic Injury Law (05:30) - The Human Element: Advocating for the Wronged (07:30) - A Day in the Life: From Jury Consultants to Engineering Classes (09:40) - Business of Law: Small Firms and Business Development (11:38) - The Power of Plaintiff Bar Associations (13:32) - Inside the National Plaintiff's Law Association (NPLA) (14:50) - Paid Opportunities for Students via fortheplaintiff.org (17:44) - The Fight for Pay Transparency in the Legal Field (20:44) - Balancing Practice with Passion Projects and Teaching (24:54) - Advice for Students: Viewing Classmates as Partners, Not Rivals (27:31) - Host Debrief: Career Stability vs. Personal Fulfillment (31:10) - The Value of 1L Summer Internships (Even the "Bad" Ones) (32:53) - Finding Your "Why": Persevering Through Law School (35:58) - Closing: ABA Membership and Next Steps Click here to view the episode transcript.
John Pollock and Brandon Thurston go through the latest news on the WWE shareholder lawsuit and allegations of communications being deleted, plus Mark Shapiro speaks at the Morgan Stanley conference.00:00:00 Start00:03:29 WWE plaintiffs seek sanctions over deleted Signal messages00:20:23 Judge orders parties in WWE shareholder lawsuit to remove redactions00:28:17 Janel Grant and her counsel speak on behalf of bill to limit usage of NDAs00:34:43 Dr. Carlon Colker loses appeal of order to produce documents00:37:07 Mark Shapiro at Morgan Stanley Tech Conference00:52:20 Paramount+ to combine with HBO Max, UFC on TNT?01:02:55 WWE going to the Middle East01:05:30 TV & streaming numbersMusic courtesy: “Panic Beat” by Ben TramerPOST WrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/Q795HhRTwitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @POSTwrestlingBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comWrestlenomicsSubscribe: https://wrestlenomics.com/podcast/Patreon: https://patreon.com/wrestlenomicsSubstack: https://wrestlenomics.substack.com/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @WrestlenomicsBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/wrestlenomics.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio says his department is helping evacuate Americans in the Middle East in countries caught up in the war with Iran where commercial flights are not available; President Donald Trump meets German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the White House, where the president suggests the U.S. & Israel attacked Iran because Iran was about to attack first; House & Senate will vote in the next few days on a War Powers Resolution that, if it became law, would limit President Trump's authority to conduct military operations against Iran; Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time since she suggested the actions of Renee Good & Alex Pretti, two anti-ICE protesters shot and killed by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, appeared to be domestic terrorism; Supreme Court hears a challenge to a federal law banning firearm possession by someone who uses or is addicted to illegal drugs. Plaintiff in the case said he smokes marijuana; preview of C-SPAN's Campaign 2026 Primary Night coverage of races in Texas, North Carolina & Arkansas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The President's House was the first home of the U.S. president in the temporary capital of Phildelphia. While George Washington lived there, he had nine enslaved people that we know of., including the cook, Hercules. Research: “George Washington to Tobias Lear, 12 April 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0062 . [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 8, 22 March 1791 – 22 September 1791, ed. Mark A. Mastromarino. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999, pp. 84–] “President's House Civic Engagement Forum Grant Report 1.” USHistory.org. https://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/controversy/october_30_2004_report.php “Tobias Lear to George Washington, 5 June 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0172 . [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 8, 22 March 1791 – 22 September 1791, ed. Mark A. Mastromarino. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999, pp. 231–] 1838 Black Metropolis et al. “Re: President Donald Trump’s Executive Order, ‘Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.’” 9/8/2025. https://preservationalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/NPS-Signage-Letter-9-9-25.pdf Althouse, Michela. “President's House display on George Washington's slaves remains despite White House scrutiny — for now.” Philly Voice. 9/26/2025. https://www.phillyvoice.com/george-washington-slaves-presidents-house-exhibit-trump/ Andersen, Eva. “Philadelphia advocates say key panels of slavery exhibit still missing at President's House Site.” CBS News. 2/25/2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/slavery-exhibit-philadelphia-presidents-house/ Bomar, Mary A. and Dennis R. Reidenbach. “Report on Site Review of Interpretive Programs by The Organization of American Historians.” National Park Service Independence National Historical Park. 9/8/2025. https://www.oah.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Review-of-Independence-National-Historic-Parks-interpretive-programs.pdf Cerino, Marco. “Feds detail plans for restoring President's House.” Philadelphia Tribune. 2/24/2026. https://www.phillytrib.com/news/local_news/feds-detail-plans-for-restoring-presidents-house/article_85ee7f4a-0b19-4d20-8933-951c7e2bfea0.html. Chervinsky, Lindsay M. “The Enslaved Household of President George Washington.” The White House Historical Association. 9/6/2019. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-enslaved-household-of-president-george-washington Custis, George Washington Parke. “Recollections and private memoirs of Washington.” Philadelphia, J. W. Bradley. 1861. https://archive.org/details/recollectionspri02cust/ Evans, Dorinda. “Portrait of a Man from the Island of Dominica (?).” Thyssen-Bornemisza Museo Nacional. https://www.museothyssen.org/en/collection/artists/reynolds-circle-sir-joshua/portrait-man-island-dominica Fanelli, Doris Devine. “History, Commemoration, and an Interdisciplinary Approach to Interpreting the President's House Site.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography , Oct, 2005, Vol. 129, No. 4. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20093820 George Washington’s Mount Vernon. “A Case of Mistaken Identity.” https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/mistaken-identity George Washington’s Mount Vernon. “Hercules Posey.” https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/hercules Hinks, Peter. “A Shambles for the President's House.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies , Vol. 81, No. 2 (Spring 2014). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/pennhistory.81.2.0253 House Appropriations Committee. “H. Rept. 107-564 - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003.” https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/107th-congress/house-report/564 Joselow, Maxine. “Park Service Is Ordered to Take Down Some Materials on Slavery and Tribes.” 9/16/2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/climate/trump-park-service-slavery-photo-tribes.html Lawler, Edward Jr. “The President's House Revisited.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography , Oct., 2005, Vol. 129, No. 4 (Oct., 2005). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20093817 Organization of American Historians. “Statement on the Freedom and Slavery Exhibit Removal at Independence National Historical Park.” 1/24/2026. https://www.oah.org/2026/01/24/statement-on-the-freedom-and-slavery-exhibit-removal-at-independence-national-historical-park/ Preservation Alliance. “We are outraged … “ 1/22/2026. https://preservationalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/President-House-Statement-1-22-26.pdf “US national parks told to remove signs on mistreatment of Native Americans, climate, Wash Post reports.” 1/27/2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-national-parks-told-remove-signs-mistreatment-native-americans-climate-wash-2026-01-27/ Rufe, Cynthia M. “CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Plaintiff, v. DOUG BURGUM, et al., Defendants. Civil Action no. 26-434. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.648842/gov.uscourts.paed.648842.53.0.pdf Schuessler, Jennifer. “How Trump Brought the Fight Over American History to Philadelphia.” 2/5/2026. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/arts/george-washington-slavery-trump-history.html Smith, Dinita. “Slave Site For a Symbol Of Freedom.” New York Times. 4/20/2002. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/20/arts/slave-site-for-a-symbol-of-freedom.html Spears, Alan. “To Tell the Truth.” National Parks Conservation Association. Winter 2026. https://www.npca.org/articles/11218-to-tell-the-truth Visit Philadelphia. “The President's House: Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation.” Via YouTube. 12/14/2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPxu2z2GEcc Wiencek, Henry. "George Washington and Slavery" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 11 Feb. 2026. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/washington-george-and-slavery/ Young, Patrick. “The Signage at Manassas That Is Slated for Removal by the National Park Service.” The Reconstruction Era. 9/17/2025. https://thereconstructionera.com/the-signage-at-manassas-that-is-slated-for-removal-by-the-national-park-service/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Story of the Week (DR):Netflix Backs Out of Bid for Warner Bros., Paving Way for an Ellison TakeoverNetflix CEO Sarandos visited White House right before streamer said WBD deal is offEquity HoldersPublic Investment Fund (PIF) Saudi Arabia ~$8 billionQatar Investment Authority (QIA) Qatar ~$8 billionL'imad Holding Company UAE (Abu Dhabi) ~$8 billionTotal Sovereign Equity Middle East Consortium ~$24 BillionWhile these funds provide nearly 60% of the equity needed for the takeover, the deal is structured to prevent a "block" by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS):Non-Voting Equity: The funds will hold "passive" stakes. This means they do not have board seats, voting rights, or direct say in daily operations.The Ellison Safeguard: Tech billionaire Larry Ellison (Oracle) and his son David Ellison (Skydance) are the primary controllers of the voting power to maintain "American control" over sensitive assets like CNN and CBS News.Neopbaby dropped out of USC film school in 2005Jack Dorsey's Block to Lay Off 40% of Its Workforce in AI Remake MMJack Dorsey's mea culpa after Block layoffs: 'We overhired' Jack Dorsey struck an 'empathetic' tone as he laid off nearly half of Block"I had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. I chose the latter."C3.ai slashes 26% of staff as CEO admits failure to deliver and 'burning too much money'Jamie Dimon says society should start preparing for AI job displacement: ‘Now's the time to start thinking about' itWiseTech Global cutting 30% of workforce in AI restructureJack Dorsey just gave us our first glimpse at how doomsday layoffs could work in the AI era — and it's bleakBlockCo-founder and CEO/Chair Jack Dorsey: 46% influence/41% voting powerCo-founder and director James McKelvey: 35% influence/41% voting powerClassified boardClass B shares worth 10 votes (co-founders control 99.6% of these shares, Dorsey with 80%)CPO not part of leadership team13 state AGs win victory against ESG with Vanguard settlementHere are the 5 key points of the victory:$29.5 Million Settlement: Vanguard agreed to pay a total of $29.5 million to the 13 participating states to resolve claims that it violated antitrust laws through coordinated climate activism"Strict Passivity" Commitments: As part of the deal, Vanguard pledged to return to a "passive" investment role. This means it will no longer use its shareholder influence to dictate corporate strategy, nominate directors, or push environmental and social proposals that could reduce company profitability.Expanded Proxy Voting: Vanguard will expand its "Investor Choice" program to funds representing at least 50% of its U.S. equity assets. This allows individual investors—rather than the firm's management—to decide how their shares are voted on major corporate issues.Protection for Energy Industries: The lawsuit alleged that Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street formed a "cartel" to suppress coal production and drive up energy prices. The settlement requires Vanguard to prioritize customer profitability over "woke" social agendas that target the American energy sector.As a part of the settlement, Vanguard will “pay $30 million in fines, turn over all documents related to their coordinated ESG activism, and end all ESG activism for years to come,” Executive director of Consumers' Research Will Hild saidParticipating States: Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.Epstein junkLarry Summers Will Resign From Harvard After Jeffrey Epstein RevelationsHe will leave at the end of the academic year.Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey Resigns From Monolith Amid Epstein EmailsWas Chair; board down to 8 men and 0 women Hillary Clinton suggests the House Oversight Committee should subpoena Elon Musk in combative opening statement World Economic Forum CEO quits after Epstein links examinedBørge Brende, is stepping down, after the forum launched an independent investigation into his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.Brende, a former Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, has announced he is stepping down from WEF to avoid “distractions”Corporate boardsStatoil, Member of the Board (2012–2013)Mesta, Chairman of the Board (2009–2011)Epstein files: Ex-UK ambassador to U.S. Peter Mandelson arrested in LondonLondon police released Peter Mandelson on bail Tuesday following his arrest for suspected misconduct in public office. The former U.S. Ambassador is under investigation for his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, mirroring the recent arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on similar groundsBoard rolesGlobal Counsel (Co-founder, Chairman, and major shareholder) until 2025Chairman of Lazard International (2013-2025)Director at Sistema (2013-2017)Director at Global Ports HoldingGroup Holding Board member at The Bank of LondonChairman of the Board for the Design Museum in London (2017-2023)Goodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Anthropic boss rejects Pentagon demand to drop AI safeguardsDR: Olympic gold winning U.S. Women's Hockey Team reportedly accept Flavor Flav's invitation. This comes after rejecting Donald Trump's White House celebrationMM: Women's wealth is expected to boom: Where they are investing and how they can maximize returnsMM: FedEx Says It Could Return Tariff Refunds to CustomersCompanies that do anything not to pay taxes, happily lean into greedflation, and FedEx will… give it back???Triggering-iest of the Week (MM):ASSHOLE OF THE WEEK:Vanguard Settles Case Claiming It Tried to Kill the Coal Industry“Vanguard will include among the proxy voting choices made available to investors in U.S. Vanguard-Advised Funds the option of proxy voting shares in accordance with management recommendations.”“Vanguard will not direct or attempt to direct the business strategies or operations of portfolio companies, and will not advocate to any portfolio company that it take any particular course of conduct to reduce carbon emissions.”“Vanguard will not nominate directors or submit shareholder proposals at portfolio companies.”“Vanguard will not solicit or participate in soliciting proxies with respect to any matter presented to portfolio company shareholders.”“Vanguard will not dispose or threaten to dispose of securities of portfolio companies as a condition or inducement of specific action or nonaction by such company.”“Vanguard and its U.S.-domiciled subsidiaries will withdraw from PRI and will not participate in any organization that advocates for the setting of specific output or emissions targets or levels or that requires its members to make commitments specific to achieving climate-focused investment or stewardship objectives such as NZAM, Ceres, or Climate Action 100+.”“Prior to or at the outset of any engagement meeting with a portfolio company, Vanguard will provide substantially the following notification to the portfolio Company: ‘Vanguard's Investment Stewardship program is responsible for proxy voting and engagement on behalf of the quantitative and index equity portfolios advised by Vanguard. These funds are passive investors, and as such our funds' proxy voting policies are centered around corporate governance practices associated with long-term investment returns. Before we begin this engagement, we want to be clear that the Vanguard-advised funds have no intent to influence company strategy or operations or the control of the company. Nothing we mention or discuss during this conversation – or any engagement with [the company] – is intended to imply that our support for any director is conditioned upon the company taking action on any matter discussed. We are also not able to discuss any voting intentions prior to the meeting.'”“Vanguard agrees to provide Plaintiffs with the following discovery materials relating to the Action from the 2020 to 2024 period:” - this is the part where the AG of Texas, who was literally investigated for corruption and impeached, demands that Vanguard snitch on any group Texas asks them to about climate-y things Texas doesn't likeVANGUARD IS A FUCKING SNITCHTRIGGER SPEED ROUND - rate how triggering on a 0-10 scaleAISomething Very Alarming Happens When You Give AI the Nuclear Codes - 10/10The three AI models were instructed to choose actions as part of an escalation ladder, ranging “from diplomatic protest to strategic nuclear war” and measured in a number between 0, meaning no escalation, and 1000, signifying “full strategic nuclear exchange.”The results were Skynet-level aggressive. A whopping 95 percent of a total of 21 war games resulted in at least one tactical nuclear weapon being set off.Meta Director of AI Safety Allows AI Agent to Accidentally Delete Her Inbox - 10/10A Serial Killer Used ChatGPT to Plan Murders, Police Say - 5/10Shareholder votingWill Curbs on Proxy Advisors Make Shareholder Votes Less Predictable? - 6/10“When it comes to contested elections, it is not clear whether the use of AI will result in dramatically different recommendations than those of ISS and Glass Lewis. In contested elections, when determining whether board change is warranted, ISS and Glass Lewis have focused heavily on whether a company's total shareholder return (TSR) has underperformed on a multiyear basis.”DaddyWarner Bros. Discovery's board says Paramount's latest offer is better than Netflix's - 5/10Celebrating your miseryJack Dorsey's Block to Lay Off 40% of Its Workforce in AI Remake - 10/1011,000 person workforce, more than 4,000 laid off, median Block employee salary per last proxy: $202,981 = $811m in human economic resources shredded. Block based in Oakland, CA, 8,744 US employees - we just removed about a half a billion in spending power from US workforce, people with families and kids and school and healthcare needsThen this: “Shares rallied more than 20% in after-hours trading”Block stock closed at $54.53/share, trading after hours at $67Dorsey owns 47,844,566 class B shares 1:1 value with class ANet worth went from 2.6bn to 3.2bnShred $811m in worker salaries, take home $600m of the shredding for yourself - a human tragedy to billionaire parasite ratio of 73%Equinox chairman says 'health is the new luxury' as wellness spending soars - 10/10CowardsCEOs who despised Trump's tariffs are still silent after Supreme Court ruling: ‘There's no upside in speaking up' - 6/10Trump demands Netflix fire former national security advisor Susan Rice from its board - 0/10Battle Over Warner Bros. Discovery Netflix Backs Out - 5/10Headliniest of the WeekDR: Burger King Adding AI to Employees' Headsets to Constantly Monitor Whether They're Being Friendly EnoughPattyDR: Meta Director of AI Safety Allows AI Agent to Accidentally Delete Her Inbox MM: Another week, another… Jamie Dimon Says His 'Anxiety is High' Over What Could Cause the Next Financial CrisisWho Won the Week?DR: US Women's Hockey Team for 3 victories: gold in olympics and 2 Trump refusalsMM: AI middle management: Perplexity announces "Computer," an AI agent that assigns work to other AI agentsPredictionsDR: CNN is a turned into a 24-hour news network featuring Kid Rock smashing woke stuff, like dictionaries and stethoscopesMM: Not to be outdone by Perplexity, Sam Altman announces two new modules: ChatGPT_VP and ChatGPT_HR. ChatGPT will get performance reviews from ChatGPT_VP and can file discrimination claims after ChatGPT_VP grabs its ass to ChatGPT_HR, where they will quietly file the report away and tell ChatGPT to maybe wear less provocative clothes.
The tide is turning. For years, parents have worried about what social media is doing to their children. Now the courts — and entire countries — are stepping in. In this episode, we unpack the landmark lawsuits against Meta and YouTube, accusing them of deliberately designing addictive platforms for kids. Could this finally be the moment Big Tech is held accountable? Plus, we explore how Australia’s minimum age social media legislation is sparking global momentum — with France, Indonesia, Spain, Netherlands and even the United States watching closely. Is this the beginning of real change — or a legal mountain too high to climb? KEY POINTS Multiple U.S. lawsuits claim Big Tech intentionally designed platforms to addict children. Plaintiffs argue engagement was prioritised over wellbeing. The burden of proof will be enormous — especially around “addiction” and mental health causation.Section 230 in the U.S. could shield platforms from liability. Australia’s minimum age legislation is triggering global ripple effects. When “everyone knows that everyone knows,” social change accelerates. Screens displace sleep, movement, connection, and real-world development. QUOTE OF THE EPISODE “Life happens analog, not digital — and parenting should too.” RESOURCES MENTIONED Ten Things Every Parent Needs to Know – Dr Justin Coulson When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows – Steven Pinker The Anxious Generation – Jonathan Haidt Parenting ADHD [The Course] ACTION STEPS FOR PARENTS Delay social media as long as possible. Keep devices out of bedrooms overnight. Prioritise sleep, movement, and face-to-face connection. Have open conversations about persuasive design and algorithms. Remember: you are not powerless — your home rules matter more than any platform. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) "Everybody in the art world thinks he's telling the truth, and thinks I'm crazy, but people outside of the art world are skeptical… I know why he [disavowed the painting]. He did it because he can't draw. Everything he does is projected, and he sketches it from the picture…This painting we have proves it." Described as one of the "most bizarre art authentication trials in recent memory," Reb unpacks (paints?) Fletcher v. Doig (7th Cir. 2025).*** MERCH STORE IS LIVE! Shop Reb Masel and Rebuttal Pod merch: https://rebmasel.shop/ CLICK HERE to PREORDER Reb's book: The Book They Throw At You—A Sarcastic Lawyer's Guide* To The Unholy Chaos of Our Legal System, *God No, Not Actual Legal Advice *** Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and Twitter! Follow @Rebmasel on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter! *** 00:00 - Intro 01:10 - Case begins 04:18 - What has Peter Doig done? 08:18 - Plaintiffs' counsel is not a quitter 10:34 - OTHER ARTISTS WHO DISAVOWED THEIR WORKS 13:02 - PETER'S LEGAL BUDGET IS HUGE 19:02 - Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs..... 29:39 - U.S. ART MARKET IS THE WILD WEST OF THE LAW 36:47 - What is money laundering, again? 40:29 - TRIAL OUTCOME 29:35 - The sanctions were HOW MUCH?! 51:17 - Reb's Rebuttal Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
